The Assembly met at 10.30am [Mr Speaker in the Chair].
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Assembly Business

Mr Speaker: After the Final Stage of the Appropriation Bill there will be a statement from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister about their recent visit to Brussels.
After questions this afternoon there will be a statement from the Minister of Finance and Personnel about EU special funding, and immediately before the Adjournment debate tomorrow there be a private notice question in the name of Mrs Mary Nelis about the Transtec company.
The final stage of the Appropriation Bill is the first item on this week’s Order Paper. The matter was well aired in debate on the Estimates, no amendments have been tabled at any stage, and no notice has been received of Members wishing to speak. I therefore propose, by leave of the Assembly, that we take not more than 30minutes for this item.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am concerned about the authority of your office. Last week a Member took upon himself the role of "Pope". In view of the statement by that Member, who in other places exercises powers of infallibility, will you confirm that he will not be allowed to exercise those powers in this House and that your authority will remain paramount?

Mr Speaker: Whatever authority the Speaker may have, it is much more limited than that of the Holy Father. I will simply do the best that I can to make the Assembly work, and I have no doubt that other Members will do likewise.

Appropriation Bill

Final Stage

Resolved:
That the Appropriation Bill [NIA5/99] do now pass.—[The Minister of Finance and Personnel (Mr Durkan)]

Brussels Visit of First and Deputy First Ministers

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister that a statement is to be made on their recent visit to Brussels.
I will allow up to the full one hour for questions on the statement.

Mr Seamus Mallon: I wish to advise the Assembly that on 21 June the First Minister and I, accompanied by the Minister of Finance and Personnel, had a series of important meetings in Brussels with members of the European Parliament, the Commission and the Council.
The aim of our visit was three-fold. First, as Members will be aware, over the last 18months the First Minister and I have been working to obtain significant continuing financial support from Europe to help secure Northern Ireland’s transition to a new peaceful society. That is something that we must all work towards, and I thank the MEPs for their continuing role.
During our visit we met with Commissioner Barnier, who is responsible for the structural funds, to conclude our negotiations on the first stage of a process that will secure the allocation of £940million of support over the next sixyears. That will be channelled through both the Transitional Objective 1 and the Peace II programmes.
We had a very useful and very heartening meeting with CommissionerBarnier. We discussed the important role that the Peace II programme can play, both in addressing the legacy of the last three decades and in seizing the opportunities of peace. In short, it can help us create a prosperous, peaceful and inclusive society. When one takes the matching funding into account, Peace II equates to £75million each year for Northern Ireland. We agreed the importance of not just spending these resources effectively but creating a highly inclusive plan to implement and monitor these important funds.
The first stage has now been completed with the formal processing of these documents in Brussels. We can now turn to the detailed negotiation of the operational programmes. In that matter we will work closely with a wide range of local interests including local government and the social partners. Commissioner Barnier, whose first visit to a region as the Commissioner was to Northern Ireland, emphasised his personal commitment to our work. He also emphasised the European Union’s desire to share in the process of creating peace here. We discussed our aim of developing our links with Brussels. This includes the opening of an office and increasing the exposure of Northern Ireland officials to the European institutions. He particularly welcomed these plans.
Secondly, the First Minister and I had a valuable meeting with CommissionerByrne, the Health and Consumer Protection Commissioner. We supported very strongly the real efforts made by our Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, Bríd Rodgers, and the United Kingdom Minister for Agriculture, NickBrown, who are seeking to ensure that Northern Ireland can benefit from low incidence BSE status and the potential that provides for beef exports. We thanked the Commissioner for his continuing commitment to this initiative and emphasised the importance of rapid progress. The prospects of a resolution of this problem seem to be good and we welcome the efforts of the Commission and the support of the United Kingdom Government and congratulate the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development on her efforts.
The third theme of our day was to re-establish contact with key individuals in both the Commission and the Parliament and to start building the links we need to ensure that Northern Ireland not only benefits from the European Union but contributes to it as well. We had a very substantial meeting with RomanoProdi, the President of the European Commission, to brief him on Northern Ireland and to invite him to visit here.
I am delighted to say that he eagerly accepted the invitation, and plans will be put in place in the coming months. We also emphasised the need for an early decision on the eligibility of the Viridian capital fund.
We also met with Commissioner Kinnock, Mr David O’Sullivan, the new secretary-general of the commission, Sir Stephen Wall, the UK’s permanent representative to the European Union and Denis O’Leary, the Irish permanent representative. Two of our MEPs, MrHume and MrNicholson, were involved in part of the visit, and their presence, as always, was most helpful. We had a series of meetings with Members of the European Parliament to brief them on developments.
This visit emphasised the immense goodwill towards Northern Ireland in all parts of the European institutions. The successful transition that we are seeking to achieve here is of real interest to our European partners. They see it as an important development for the European Union. They have shown new willingness to support this not just financially but also in other practical ways. This is extremely welcome. It is important, however, that we do not see ourselves simply as recipients of others’ assistance. We have had to learn a great deal over the last decades. Those lessons have been hard learnt, but we have now a unique experience of seeking to live together in peace. Leading a region through the transition from conflict to peace is no minor task. It is the task that faces all of us. We are not the only region in the expanding European Union that faces this challenge. It is important that we share with others what we have learnt and, of course, in the process, learn more ourselves. We too will be exploring practical ways to see how this can be brought about.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Will the Minister explain to the House when this money was first announced and when it will be available? We seem to be having a series of announcements about money, many of which repeat what is already in the public domain. What extra money would we have received if we had met the same conditions for Objective 1 as were met by the Irish Republic? What extra percentage of funds would this part of the United Kingdom have obtained?
What is the result of the agriculture talks on the BSE problem? The Minister responsible is today in the Irish Republic and absent from the House. Surely her first duty is to tell this House what is happening among the hard-hit farmers of Northern Ireland. How long ago was the money known to be available? Sir Reg Empey made a statement about money from Europe being squandered. What actions are going to be taken by the Minister to see that this will not happen with this money?
This money is supposed to be extra. It is not supposed to be used for areas or programmes to which the Government are already committed. The vexed question of additionality arises again. Is the Minister prepared to tell us that this money will be used for additional and supplementary programmes?
These are questions that need to be answered by the Deputy First Minister.

Mr Seamus Mallon: I thank the hon Member again, as I do all other MEPs, for the help and support that he has given to us on this. I am sorry that MrPaisley was not present last week, though no doubt there were good reasons for his absence.
The Assembly will know that it is clear to everyone who was involved in and understood the institutions in the run up to the Berlin summit of 1999 that no region with a GDP of more than 75% on average could maintain Objective 1 status.
No exceptions to that were possible, and none was made. The outcome secured for NorthernIreland is much better than that obtained by any other former Objective 1 region. The continuation of the peace programme with full additionality means that Northern Ireland benefits as much from funding as any other comparable Objective 1 region. We should recognise that the battle for the Peace II programme in terms of traditional Objective 1 status was crucial for it has created a situation in which funding for the North of Ireland is equal to that of any other Objective 1 region.
The First Minister and I secured this outcome after an intensive six-month lobbying campaign with the help of all the MEPs to obtain the support of the United Kingdom and Irish Governments, the European Commission and the German presidency. Fortunately, it was successful.
The Member raised the question of funds being squandered. I should like to point out that the most stringent monitoring will be carried out. There is disquiet, and we must ensure that we deal with it. We shall do this in the most effective and ruthless way possible so that there can be no misappropriation or squandering of the funds for which we are responsible. I also give an assurance that the Peace II programme is additional. That was one of the conditions of its being granted by the European Commission, and we shall adhere to that.
As the Member knows, a range of BSE-related issues regarding trade must be sorted out to deal with a complex system. In Brussels we stressed the importance of rapid progress in this area. Both CommissionerByrne and NickBrown, the Minister of Agriculture, are committed to having this matter resolved, and I believe that that will happen. It is impossible to put a timescale on it at this stage, but it is on the way to being resolved, and that must be good for us all.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I welcome this opportunity to congratulate the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Minister of Finance and Personnel on completing the negotiations on European support mechanisms, including the structural funds and the special support programme for peace and reconciliation. I also commend the three MEPs on their ongoing work in Europe and their working relationship, which, along with the working relationship between the parties in the Assembly, are a proof of our future strength in Europe.
How can we ensure that partnership boards are fully involved in the implementation of the structural funds?

Mr Seamus Mallon: The European Commission has been extremely positive about partnership in the peace package. CommissionerBarnier stressed the value of such partnership during both his visit to us and our visit to him. I also recall his predecessor, Monika Wulf-Mathies, placing a great deal of emphasis on partnership in her earlier negotiations. The question of how we develop it will arise in the next stage. The involvement of local government, the voluntary sector and other parts of the local partnership — a key part of the Peace I programme — is to be considered and developed. I understand that proposals on this are being discussed and will come before the Executive Committee.
Undoubtedly this form of partnership has been a crucial aspect of the Peace I programme, and in the light of experience we will wish to see how we can develop this to the maximum benefit. I would like to dispel any unease that, in effect, the partnership element in the administration of the Peace II programme will continue; we will try to ensure that it continues in the most valuable way possible. Also, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of those involved in the positive elements of those partnerships for the work they did and the efforts they made.

Mr Mitchel McLaughlin: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I want to say on behalf of Sinn Féin that we welcome the statement. We applaud the very good work of all those who contributed to securing this additional funding, both the transitional funding and the additional tranche for Peace II. A relationship with European partners is a necessary and important element in the peace process in Ireland. Of unique importance, over and above the continued EU financial support for the transitional funding from Objective 1 status, has been the continued funding for peace and reconciliation purposes — Peace II. A number of concerns in relation to Peace II have emerged, and the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister — and, indeed, Minister Mark Durkan — will be aware that these issues have been raised. The previous balance between economic development and social inclusion, which was achieved with such remarkable results under the peace and reconciliation funding, is now under threat, and that balance may be lost.
A second concern is that there might be a hiatus in funding, and I would like to ask the Deputy First Minister if this is to be addressed. Now that the funding has been secured, would it be possible to arrange for bridging funding to ensure that many of these organisations do not collapse as a result of a break in funding or a lack of continuity?
A third issue of concern is to do with the district partnerships, which represent civic society’s involvement in this process. A proposition is being seriously considered that district councils take over those functions and replace the district partnerships. That would be a step back from the principle of inclusivity.
I note with some assurance the mention in the statement that we are talking about a more inclusive process, and I hope that that particular aspect will be addressed and resolved.
Finally, I want to mention the issue of this possibly being the last such funding tranche for peace and reconciliation purposes. This is a society emerging from conflict into a process of change. That process of change will continue to challenge all of us, and it may be necessary to attempt to secure continuous support from the EU for this process — and I hope that the Deputy First Minister will be able to give some indication of this. As a society, we are looking towards not just continuous political change but, quite possibly, within the foreseeable future, constitutional change. That would be of interest to our European partners. Thank you very much.

Mr Seamus Mallon: I thank the Member for his observations. He is quite right: the European Union is a crucial part of our existence. I welcome his implication that we should be a crucial part of the European existence. We are not simply a region sitting with our own problems here; we are part of a European Union that has and will have continuing problems — problems especially concerning the expansion of the European Union. It is my belief that we have a very important role to play in being able to make the North of Ireland the template for conflict resolution in other places, the template for dealing with the transition from violence to peace. I consider that that is one of the crucial roles that we should and must play in Europe. It is not just a matter of our always looking for what we can get out of Europe; we should be asking what can we contribute to Europe. The more we do that, the more our voice will be heard there.
The Committee has developed an approach that strikes a good balance between the economic and social elements. Commissioner Barnier also appeared to feel that we were getting this right. Economic and social actions can and must be mutually supportive. We will continue to listen to the views expressed in consultation on this so that the best possible outcome is secured in the next phase of negotiations.
I also take the point that the Member made on a hiatus in funding. We have to ensure that that hiatus, if there is one, is as short and as painless as possible. I know the Member will understand that I cannot anticipate decisions that may be made on this by the Executive Committee or by other Departments.
There should be no tension between the partnership boards and district councils. When we look at the genesis of the partnership boards we realise that most of them, and the community groupings involved, did a remarkable job, in difficult circumstances, on issues which were not being addressed by Departments or by district councils. That was one of the reasons for the creation of those partnerships. We will have to get, as in the socio-economic balance, the right mix between partnerships at all levels in Northern Ireland.
The Member makes a very interesting point about securing continuing support from the EU. We will try to do that. We will try to make the North of Ireland as relevant to Europe as is possible to try to maximise that opportunity. We have to work on the basis that we are not going to see the same type of Peace I or Peace II programme. That does not mean that we cannot, given our ingenuity, create other ways in which to seek assistance, while not at this stage attempting in any way to anticipate that we might get it.

Mr Speaker: I encourage Members to remember that this is an opportunity to ask questions. Any intervention should be in the form of a question.

Mr James Leslie: I welcome the statement from the Deputy First Minister about his visit to Brussels. I note the reference to the opening of an office in Brussels. What budget has he in mind for that office, and what does he anticipate being the additional benefits that would be obtained through that office in return for the money that it would cost to run it?
In his statement he used the words, in the context of that office,
"increasing the exposure of Northern Ireland officials to the European institutions."
That is a slightly unfortunate choice of words in view of the recent inquiries on the conduct of certain European officials. He might like to rephrase that if it is going to be used in future. I have no reason at all to think that any of the inquiries about European officials will be about our officials, but I would not like them to be associated with those inquiries by a form of words.
The other matter relates to the question the Deputy First Minister has just answered on the peace money. His statement says that Peace II equates to £75million each year for NorthernIreland. Last week I asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel whether this should be spent in equal tranches over the period or whether it would be in some other configuration. At that stage he thought that equal tranches were what was envisaged. I question whether that is sensible. There is the distinct probability that this funding will diminish very considerably at the end of the current programme. It might be more prudent if the amount were higher at the start and then tapered. The recipients would become accustomed to getting by with a smaller allocation over time.
We do not want a repetition of the situation which we have now with a great many, often very worthy, organisations finding themselves short of funding because of the uncertainty between one programme and the next. We should be planning for the future to ensure that we do not have that problem at the end of the programme.

Mr Seamus Mallon: I thank the Member for his questions.
I am advised that the cost will be in the region of £500,000 per year. Proposals, soon to be brought to the Executive Committee about the office will ensure that the money is well spent. The proposals will also aim to achieve a number of other things. We have been looking at examples from other regions and would like to start by developing an office to provide a base for Ministers and officials visiting from Northern Ireland. That is important, because as the Assembly develops, the number of visits, in both directions, will increase.
A small number of permanent staff will have a role in ensuring that we have an early warning of developments at the European level and this will ensure that the Northern Ireland interest is taken into account in all negotiations, in the Commission, the Council and the Parliament. We should look at the Welsh and Scottish experiences and at how they are maximising their presence in Brussels. They know the fast tracks, they know how to get on to the fast tracks and more importantly, and they know how to get off the fast tracks with the maximum advantages.
We also want to see how such an office could help us build links with regional authorities from other member states to ensure the best exchange of ideas and information. The other objective is to establish a role for us in the European Union that will transcend funding. Such involvement could substantially increase our stock there and ensure that when we do need assistance we will be knocking at more open doors than might otherwise be the case. We are very keen to work with other organisations from Northern Ireland that are also eager to develop links in Europe.
The second point that the Member made was about exposure. I am not sure which elements of exposure the Member was speaking of, but I will simplify it in these terms. As the relationship between the political process in the North of Ireland and Europe increases, I would like to see people from there being seconded to here, and vice versa, so that we can develop that ongoing process. We have to lose our insularity. We have to expose ourselves and our officials to fresh thinking, especially from within the European Union.
Regarding the Member’s third point about allocating £75million per annum on a decreasing scale as opposed to in equal tranches, I am not sure that any mathematical formula will be consistent. I will leave that to the Executive Committee and to the Department of Finance and Personnel. However, thinking of partnership, there are some things you cannot quantify, such as the value of inclusion and the work done by inclusion. I do not think that we should be looking at the Peace II element in that way. While it must be effective and efficient, I am not sure that it is something that a slide rule could be effectively applied to.

Mr Sean Neeson: I welcome the statement made by the Deputy First Minister and thank him and his Colleagues. We are well aware of the delays in the acceptance of the submission that was made from Northern Ireland, so this is very good news for Northern Ireland and the Assembly. We want joined-up Government in Northern Ireland, so can the Minister assure me that the funds will be used in a strategic way, rather than Department-led, as was often the case in the past?
A large element of the package deals with structural funds, and a major element of that, in my book, relates to infrastructure. As a member of the monitoring committee that was established during the period of suspension, I raised the issue of the crisis with the railways. May I ask the Deputy First Minister what provisions have been made to address this crisis and what funds have been made available for the possible extension of the natural gas pipeline to the north west.
Finally, I welcome the announcement that there will be an office representing Northern Ireland’s interests in Brussels. As a very strong supporter of Europe, I would like to be assured by the Minister that the role played by the Northern Ireland centre in Europe will also be recognised.

Mr Seamus Mallon: With regard to the Member’s first question, the detail of the operational programmes still has to be negotiated. Like MrNeeson, I hope that it will be done on a strategic basis with the cross-cutting element properly and adequately dealt with. With regard to the targeting of social need (TSN), it is essential that each Department fully implement those proposals and, at the same time, have a strategic overview on what must be done.
The second question about support for railways depends on the view taken by the Minister for Regional Development and other Ministers on how we approach investment in railways. The rail infrastructure for the North of Ireland is a huge issue which must be addressed by the Executive Committee. We must make progress here, but railways are not likely to be suitable for inclusion in the Peace II programme, although there may be scope in transitional Objective 1, but not as an addition, as I think the Member will accept.

Ms Jane Morrice: I join with others in welcoming the Deputy First Minister’s statement. A number of people have been patting themselves on the back for securing this funding, but I am sure that the Deputy First Minister will agree that it is the European Union that deserves the appreciation and recognition for the strong commitment it is showing to Northern Ireland.
Can the Deputy First Minister confirm that European Union funding from Peace II, the peace and reconciliation fund, will be used for the vital purpose of peace building, and for this alone, and that any project which does not fit this criterion will not be accepted?
Secondly, can the Deputy First Minister confirm that intermediary funding bodies which have shown high levels of expertise and experience on the ground will continue to be used as funding mechanisms for this new programme?
Thirdly, I too welcome the increased links with Europe and the opening of an office as an extension of those links. I hope that it was only a slip of the pen that caused mention to be made of increasing the exposure of Northern Ireland officials to the European Institutions. Surely what we need is to increase the exposure of NorthernIreland’s people to these institutions. That includes young people, business people, trade unions and other organisations, which can become a much greater part of the European project.

Mr Seamus Mallon: I thank the Member for those questions. When I speak of exposure, of course I mean it at every level. I referred to the ones for which we have administrative authority. Like the Member, I hope that every facet of life will avail of the communications that exist, and especially of the new office, which will be a great help.
The Member asked whether the PeaceII programme would be used for peace-building alone. I believe that the mixture of economic and social priorities has to be right. It is very difficult. To put it simply, one of the most basic things that puts people at peace with themselves, their neighbours and their environment is the hope that they will have a job to go to and a wage packet at the end of the week. That gives them the self-respect that any family is entitled to. I do not think it is possible to draw a simple line of demarcation between that which would assist people in the North of Ireland in economic terms and that which could be defined as purely social input.
The remarkable work that has been done by many of the partnerships has been to give people the confidence not just to develop their own communities but to develop on the type of strategic basis that Mr Neeson mentioned. We must keep developing that. I cannot say at this stage which funding mechanisms will be retained or sustained, but we are committed to building on the success of the peace programme, and particularly on those partnerships. Further work is needed on how best to bring together all the positive contributions made by district councils, social partners and voluntary and community groups.
We must have an inclusive, grass-roots-based process. That is very important to us and to the Commission. The Commission has made it clear that that is regarded as being of primary importance. We will treat it as such, not only because it is the right thing to do — which it is — but because it is essential in this type of development to have those partnerships working properly, in the proper meaning of the term — partnerships with this Administration, with the district councils and with the communities.

Mr Jim Shannon: I too thank the Deputy First Minister, as well as the three MEPs, for the work that they have done. They have worked industriously backstage to ensure that the money will arrive.
In his address the Deputy First Minister referred to the wider range of local interests, including local government and the social partners. I welcome a close liaison between local government and the partnership boards, but I have three questions.

Mr Speaker: Order. I ask the Member to speak a little slower. Some Members are having difficulty picking him up.

Mr Jim Shannon: I will come a bit closer.
I wish to ask three questions about local government and social partners.
Does the Deputy First Minister agree that local councils have an important role to play in economic strategy and can spend up to 5p in the pound of their rates income on that sector? Secondly, does he agree that there should be more local representatives on the local partnership boards? At present they number seven out of 21. Thirdly, and most importantly, does he agree that there should be closer co-operation between councils and local partnership boards, as many councils feel that they would be the poor relation in that partnership?

Mr Seamus Mallon: Obviously district councils have a crucial role to play in developing economic strategy, and they have the fund-raising mechanism to facilitate this. There have been many instances in which district councils have been the springboard for investment and for Government decisions that would not otherwise have been made. We must continue to try to get this balance right — the balance between economic strategy and the need to deal with the social aspects of partnership. The two are not mutually exclusive, and we should avoid thinking that district councils and district partnerships are exclusive. I served on a district council for 16 years. Many of the needs of the partnerships were fulfilled by the partnerships themselves because they were doing the type of work that neither the district councils nor the Departments were equipped to do. The term "partnership" needs to be regarded more globally. We need to consider partnership between this Administration, district councils, partnership boards and other elements of social partnership. There will, no doubt, be further discussion about the numbers of councillors on partnership boards, and here again we need to get the balance right. The more successful the current operation is, the more we will extend beyond just administering funds to creating broad partnerships throughout the community. We ourselves are a product of this process. We should not forget that, when we set about trying to resolve our political problems, we took as a template the partnerships that already existed. From these we created the partnership here, known as the Northern Ireland Executive Committee of the Assembly.

Mr John Dallat: I congratulate the Ministers and welcome the Deputy First Minister’s assurance that he will stamp out any misappropriation of European funds. Is he aware that the irregularities of EU funding will be highlighted in an ‘Insight’ programme to be broadcast this evening? What steps will he take to reassure people watching this programme that EU funding will reach the people that it is intended to help?

Mr Seamus Mallon: I thank the Member for his question, which is very important.
I understand that this evening’s ‘Insight’ programme takes a critical look at excessive, or irregular, EU funding for projects under Peace I. I should like to stress that, while I am not aware of specific project details, any evidence that suggests misappropriation of European programme funds has been, and will continue to be, thoroughly investigated. These are public funds, and the highest standards of accountability must be attached to all these moneys. Accountability, value for money and the safeguarding of public funds are all of primary concern in the structural fund programmes. The programme places considerable emphasis on reaching out to grass-roots organisations, but since these are public funds, their use must be carefully scrutinised and the moneys accounted for through the proper channels. Grants-in-aid to intermediary funding bodies and second-tier bodies are subject to terms and conditions, which make them responsible for the monitoring of grants to final recipients. Government Departments remain fully accountable for all EU and matching funding handled by these organisations. All structural funds expenditure handled by Northern Ireland Departments is subject to the normal requirements for Government accounting by the Northern Ireland Audit Office and the European Court of Auditors.
Any lessons learned from PeaceI, along with the experience gained by the funding bodies, will be built upon in PeaceII to ensure that the programme is managed efficiently and effectively. This matter was raised with the FirstMinister, the Minister ofFinance and Personnel and myself by CommissionerBarnier. I say to the Assembly what I said to him: "We will not put ourselves in the position where we make a case in Brussels for funding, for that funding to be in any way misused or misappropriated."
I know that there are details that must be looked at. They are being looked at, and they will be looked at. I would dispel the notion that it is just some of the community groupings that are involved. It is much more fundamental than that and, therefore, much more worrying. At this stage I assure everyone that what can be done will be done in relation to what might have happened, and we will ensure there will be no repeat of that in any shape or form.

Mr Derek Hussey: I welcome the Deputy First Minister’s statement. I want to tease out the last sentence on the first page of the statement:
"We agreed the importance not just of spending these resources effectively, but creating a highly inclusive plan to implement and monitor these important Funds."
Efficiency and inclusion are important. On efficiency, can the Deputy FirstMinister give us an assurance that sustainability will be an important element of any projects coming through under peace and reconciliation? It should be addressed under project assessment.
This follows from MrShannon’s question. In some projects, district councils are having to give assistance. It would be better if the sustainability element could ensure that these projects are able to proceed on their own. Regarding inclusion, there is a need to be proactive in encouraging applications from the Protestant community, whose ethos, particularly in the rural areas, has, in the past, militated against it availing of the benefits of peace and reconciliation funding. I know that there is a need to redress the balance in my constituency. I hope that this will be taken on board.

Mr Seamus Mallon: I thank the Member for his question.
Sustainability is very important. It is very important in relation to the question from the Member for Foyle about the end — for there will be an end to PeaceII, just as there was an end to PeaceI. In seeking sustainability, we must recognise that there are elements in our lives that cannot be measured. The benefit to the entire community in the North of Ireland from some of the input from PeaceI and PeaceII cannot be quantified. It cannot be sustained unless we, as part of the political process, recognise its importance and ensure that we have laid the basis for its sustainability should funding of this nature come to an end. The Member’s point is a good one, and it must be kept at the forefront of our minds.
He also raised the question of district councils, and I reiterate that the ultimate elements of partnership involve that between all of us. I know from experience that remarkably good work is being done in the community by various groupings — work that district councils and Government Departments are not equipped to do. One must ask why, if district councils and Government Departments regard that work as important, they were not doing it when it was most needed. In reality there is, and will continue to be, another level in our society which needs input on a community basis.
The Member’s third point related to encouraging the Protestant community to redress the imbalance in community involvement and in the level and depth of applications. I believe that is right. The Catholic community, for whatever reasons — and there were many — was better geared towards benefiting from this type of funding. It was probably better organised on a community basis and hence better able to seek this funding. We want to make sure — I intensely dislike talking in terms of Protestant or Catholic communities — that the entire community in the North of Ireland is in a position to seek funding where it is needed and that the Administration is in a position to ensure that it gets it.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: I too welcome the Deputy First Minister’s statement. Following from the answer that he gave to the hon Member for North Down, MsMorrice, can the Minister confirm that he is giving no guarantee that intermediary funding bodies will be used to channel Peace II funds?

Mr Seamus Mallon: I am not refusing to give guarantees. I am saying — this should be obvious from everything that I have said — that I want to see partnership boards. I want to see those groupings which worked well and effectively in the past continuing to do that work and receive funding for it. I also want to make a special case for groupings that were not working effectively but received funding in a way which I do not think was acceptable. We will look very closely at their involvement, but the main thing is to ensure that those groupings which are doing good and proper work receive the funding needed to enable that work to continue.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I too welcome this opportunity for extra funding, and I thank everyone involved in securing that allocation for the coming months and years. For us, the question is obviously to do with implementation. There has to be a balance in implementation between east and west. There have been several bids for money for certain areas so far. I ask that the needs of the economy in the west be given due consideration.
The recent package given to agriculture has had very little impact, particularly when one considers the negative impact that European policies have had on our agriculture industry.
I hope that some of this money will be used to try to redress the losses rural areas have sustained because of European policies which have made them non-competitive. Clearly, this money must be additional. It is important that we do not simply use it for Government schemes which should be covered by the block grant. In the last round the Government tried to get some of the peace money used in this way.
There is also the matter of the bid for control of the money between the councils and the partnerships. Part of the success of the partnerships has been the whole issue of social inclusion. The Minister mentioned that those that were there previously were not doing the work that the partnerships have done. I see that as being part of the success of partnerships. It is important that that element be considered very strongly indeed and that they have the necessary input to deal with this money in a balanced and fair way.

Mr Seamus Mallon: I thank the Member for his question. I can assure him that, so far as the Executive Committee is concerned, it will be done in a balanced and in a fair way. That is the type of problem we now have to grapple with in terms of how we deal with the negotiations and make sure that those negotiations are properly handled.
With regard to the western part of Northern Ireland, I share his view that we must be aware of the needs of all sections of the community — and not just in terms of political or religious divisions. One of the biggest divisions in Northern Ireland is that between the rural and the urban areas. We have to ensure that the rural areas are properly catered for, and it is not easy to do that. Rural areas tend not to have the infrastructure in terms of community involvement that urban areas have. There the problems are not so glaring, but they are there.
I can assure the Member that things will be done fairly and in a way that the entire NorthernIreland community is allowed to benefit from them and that the problem of divisions between urban and rural areas will be addressed. Some of us on the Executive Committee are from rural Northern Ireland, and we will ensure at all times that those needs are brought to the attention of other members and dealt with.

Mr William Hay: Does the Minister agree that in some parts of Northern Ireland there has been serious tension between local government and the 26 district partnerships? In fact, both local government and district partnerships sometimes see each other as a threat. What mechanisms can he put in place between district councils and the 26 district partnerships to try to smooth out those issues?
There is another matter which seriously concerns those involved in local government in Northern Ireland. It has been the experience of our council that after money has been allocated to projects, groups come along asking for serious money to make up the shortfall in their finances and also looking for running costs for their projects. These costs can run into several thousands of pounds. I want to ask the Minister how these projects can be sustained. I believe that many of them will run into financial difficulties over the next few years. The only path that they see open to them is that of local government.
What mechanism can the Deputy First Minister put in place to ensure that both communities share finance equally? I am glad to hear him say that there has been an imbalance of the spending of European money on Northern Ireland’s communities — it is good that he recognises that — and I agree that the Protestant community comes from a lower base when applying for project funding. There is an imbalance that needs to be addressed.

Mr Seamus Mallon: I thank the Member for his questions.
The question of district councils as opposed to partnership boards keeps cropping up in those terms. We must try to regard this in terms not just of district councils versus partnerships but also of how they could work and dovetail together. When the Peace I programme was agreed by Europe, we should remember, it was agreed only on the basis of the approach that Europe suggested in terms of partnership boards — in other words, a bottom-up approach. CommissionerBarnier would not have sanctioned Peace II unless there were that partnership approach and those mechanisms. That does not preclude the fact that district councils could work with partnership boards in such a way that it will not be regarded as a contest bout that they are working together maximising the benefits for their city, town or district council area.
I recognise the shortfall and the unease that exists. It is always easy to blame something else, but suspension did not help in having this matter finalised, and it is one of the contributing factors.
The last question relates to what mechanisms there are to ensure that all of the community properly maximises its advantage from these funds. I am not sure that there is a specific mechanism or mechanisms that could be devised for that, but I am sure that the everybody realises that the proper, effective and full utilisation of these funds will benefit the entire community, and I recommend that type of approach.

Mr Arthur Doherty: May I too compliment the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Minister of Finance and Personnel on the encouraging outcome of the work they did in Brussels this week. I am sure that Deputy Speaker Morrice will acknowledge that this was in the face of considerable competition from others interested in securing EU funding.
I note from his statement that the Deputy First Minister raised the issue of BSE low incidence status with CommissionerByrne. He also indicated that the prospects for a resolution of the problem are good. Will he outline how this issue is to be resolved?

Mr Seamus Mallon: I thank the Member for his question.
While Northern Ireland complies with the criteria for a low-incidence region as set out by the OIE — and as we all know what the OIE is, I will not attempt to pronounce it from the piece of paper in front of me.
It is the Animal Health Organisation, and it has a very important say in this matter. We have yet to have BSE low incidence status formally recognised by the European Union. The main obstacle to achieving that centres on convincing the Commission and the other 14member states that we have the controls in place to guarantee that only Northern Ireland cattle, beef and beef products could be exported.
That is the kernel of this problem, and it is the kernel of the problem that the Commissioner, the Minister of Agriculture (Nick Brown) and our Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development (BrídRodgers) are addressing. We must address it in a way that will minimise any disruption to the existing trade in beef and beef products coming into NorthernIreland from Britain. Again that is a crucial part of the problem.
NickBrown has already made it clear that the case would only be progressed on the basis of a full and detailed public consultation throughout the United Kingdom. To that end DARD and MAFF officials have had preliminary discussions with Commissioner Byrne’s officials to agree the shape of the consultation document. It is hoped that that consultation could start in the next few weeks. Again, I am reasonably hopeful that the matter will be addressed at its core, which is in ensuring that beef that would come from the North of Ireland would be Northern Ireland beef. I look forward to a resolution of this matter because I think it is now possible to have it resolved in our favour.

Mr Speaker: We have come to the end of time for questions. I regret that a number of Members who had questions were not able to put them in the time but we have only a maximum of one hour for questions after a ministerial statement.

Fisheries (Amendment) Bill

First Stage

Mr Speaker: The Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure, MrMcGimpsey, will represent the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, MsRodgers.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I beg leave, on behalf of Ms Rodgers, to lay before the Assembly a Bill [NIA 9/99] to amend the Fisheries Act (NorthernIreland) 1966.
I apologise for the absence of Ms Rodgers, who is attending a meeting of the North/SouthMinisterial Council.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, MrSpeaker. This Bill is not yet available to Members.

Mr Speaker: The Bill cannot be made available until it has achieved its First Stage, which constitutes agreement to publish. It is a purely formal stage, and the Bill will be ready in the usual form tomorrow morning, if we proceed with it. It will then be on the list of future business until a date for a Second Stage is determined.
Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill:

Second Stage

(Mr Deputy Speaker [MrMcClelland] in the Chair)

Sir Reg Empey: I beg to move
That the Second Stage of the Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill [NIA 8/99] be agreed.
This stage provides an opportunity for a general debate on the Bill and for Members to vote on its general principles. Weights and measures law has a history going back thousands of years. In England, it was mentioned in as fundamental document as the MagnaCarta.
Until about 100 years ago weighing and measuring equipment was fairly basic and consisted of simple weighing scales and measures of capacity for commodities such as wine and grain. During the first half of the twentiethcentury, weighing machines with levers and dials and petrol pumps with meters, became commonplace. With the advent of electrical devices and more recently micro-electronics, equipment has become more tehcnical in its construction and operation and it is often connected to other equipment such as cash registers.
The history and nature of weights and measures law in Great Britain and Northern Ireland has evolved to establish suitable units of measurements and to ensure that equipment operates fairly, favouring neither buyer nor seller.
In Northern Ireland, the law governing the verification of weighing or measuring equipment is the Weights and Measures (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, and this Bill proposes three specific amendments to that Order.
Verification is the examination and testing of weighing and measuring equipment before it is allowed to be used for trade transactions. The equipment includes things like butchers’ scales and petrol pumps. Currently, verification is achieved by having the weighing and measuring equipment tested, passed and stamped by inspectors of weights and measures before it can be used for trade. Inspectors of weights and measures are suitably qualified to verify that equipment conforms to the relevant regulations, and measures with sufficient accuracy, before it can be used.
The purpose of this Bill is to introduce deregulatory measures associated with such verification of weighing or measuring equipment. These deregulatory measures can be achieved without compromising confidence in a fair trading environment.
The first measure — the self-verification of weighing or measuring equipment — will permit approved manufacturers, installers and repairers to conduct their own testing, passing as fit for use for trade, and stamping of weighing and measuring equipment. Currently, such equipment can only be verified by an inspector of weights and measures. Any approved manufacturer, installer or repairer will have to meet the same testing standards as used by inspectors.
The second measure — the testing by official European economic area (EEA) testers — will allow an inspector of weights and measures to accept, as part of the process of verification of equipment, test reports from third-party testers established in the European economic area.
If the inspector is satisfied that the tests have been performed by a competent person, he will accept the test report as part of his verification of the equipment. That would result in a saving to the owner of the equipment, as he will not incur the cost of having the test repeated.
The final measure — applying the prescribed stamp prior to testing the equipment — will enable manufacturers of weighing or measuring equipment (beer glasses, for example) who are approved verifiers to incorporate into the manufacturing process the stamp to be applied to the equipment. However, the manufacturer must have safeguards in place to ensure that the equipment will be passed as fit for such trade use and that it will not be used until it has been so passed.
These three deregulatory measures were first proposed for inclusion in the composite Deregulation (Northern Ireland) Order 1997. Consultation on that draft Order took place here in December 1996 and January 1997. No adverse response to the weights and measures provisions was received from this consultation exercise. The delay in proceeding was, of course, due to the 1997 general election. The measures perished at the time of the dissolution of Parliament.
The measures replicate for NorthernIreland the provisions contained in the Deregulation (Weights and Measures) Order 1999, which was made by the Department of Trade and Industry on 1March1999. The proposed amendments in this Bill will provide parity with the law already in force in Great Britain.
The implementation of the measures contained in this Bill has the potential to reduce burdens on business and can be achieved without reducing the current level of consumer protection in this area.
I hope that I have given Members an appreciation of the scope of the Bill and that the Assembly is content that it should now pass to the Committee Stage for more detailed scrutiny.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: I want briefly to sound some notes of caution in relation to this Bill. Obviously we will be looking at it in greater detail in Committee.
At the moment, such equipment must be verified by an inspector of weights and measures. This Bill means that shopkeepers and manufacturers can act as their own inspectors. Installers and repairers can verify equipment as fit for trade.
I am concerned that this deregulation is fraught with opportunities for abuse. I sound a note of caution at this stage, and we shall obviously look at it in further detail.
We should not go down the road of deregulation for its own sake. One must remember the deregulation of animal feeds which brought us the BSE crisis. If there is to be deregulation we must be careful that, at the very least, we put something in place for the safeguard of consumers.
Go raibh maith agat.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Second Stage of the Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill [NIA 8/99] be agreed.

Industrial Development Board: Report of House of Commons Public Accounts Committee

Dr Dara O'Hagan: I beg to move
That this Assembly welcomes the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee report on the Industrial Development Board (HC 66) and directs that the Northern Ireland Assembly Public Accounts Committee give continuing attention to the issues raised in the report.
Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. I welcome the opportunity which the publication of the Westminster Public Accounts Committee (PAC) report has afforded the Assembly to debate an important issue. Since putting this motion down I have been contacted by various Government officials and advised that such a motion may be premature as the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and the Industrial Development Board (IDB) in particular cannot formally reply to the Public Accounts Committee at Westminster until 20 July. I have also been informed that it will then be up to that Committee to decide if the response is acceptable and that the Comptroller and Auditor General will monitor undertakings given in the response, reporting back on any concerns.
All of this, however, should not and does not preclude this debate’s taking place, especially since we are heading towards the summer recess. This is too important an issue, and there are too many concerns about the activities and performance of the IDB, to put this debate off until September. Nor does it preclude the Assembly’s PAC from keeping a watching brief on the IDB as recommended by its Westminster counterpart.
Over the years, a number of official and academic studies have analysed the work of the IDB. These include reports by the Northern Ireland Economic Council and the Controller and Auditor General, community research undertaken by the West Belfast Economic Forum and hearings and reports by the Westminster PAC itself. Each of these investigations and reports contains remarkably similar findings. These are: that the IDB claims to create far more jobs than it actually does; that it violates its own criteria for providing grants; that its internal performance appraisals are inadequate; that its monitoring of grant recipients’ performance is disastrously insufficient; and that there is evidence of an unjustified waste of public money.
Further criticisms are also common to several reports. These are: that the IDB has failed to locate sufficient jobs in areas most in need of employment (namely, targeting social need (TSN) areas) in spite of the fact that TSN has been a thread in Government policy since 1990; that even those jobs located in TSN areas are not held in sufficient proportion by residents of the area, especially target groups such as the long-term unemployed; and that the IDB has shown an arrogant disregard for the public and for Government officials by providing misleading evidence and statements and, most significantly, by steadfastly refusing to change its bad practices.
The report by the Westminster Public Accounts Committee expressed surprise that the IDB had to carry out special data collection exercises to answer basic questions that it should be monitoring as a matter of course. The Committee found that the IDB provided evidence that was contradictory, confusing and misleading. It concluded, in view of the IDB’s failure to respond to previous criticisms or to come under any kind of public control, that should devolved Government be re-established, that IDB activity is a subject which we should be commended to the Northern Ireland Assembly Public Accounts Committee for continuing attention.
I want to turn to some specific concerns surrounding the IDB. First, job creation. Studies have consistently shown that IDB claims regarding job creation are totally unrealistic. The IDB uses a basic indicator called job promotions which is a notional figure of the number of jobs that could be created in a grant-aided project over a number of years. I quote an IDB representative:
"a job promoted is a result of negotiating with the company on a promise that the company will make on the basis of its business plan presented to the IDB."
Studies of actual jobs created have shown that the number is much less than quoted, and that the duration of IDB assisted jobs is quite short. For example, the Comptroller and Auditor General found that in the North of Ireland as a whole only 51% of the jobs promised by IDB assisted inward investors between 1988 and 1994 were actually created. Moreover, only 36% were still in place by March 1997.
There is also a disingenuous method in place for costs-per-job figures. This is calculated by adding together jobs promoted and jobs safeguarded, which are existing jobs that were safeguarded by IDB grants. This year’s end-of-year statement from the IDB, for example, indicates 7,145 jobs promoted and 1,796 jobs safeguarded. These total 8,941. That figure is used to calculate the cost-per-job figure, which comes out at £9,507. However, when pressed, IDB representatives stated that the actual number of jobs created in 1999-2000 was 1,609. There is clearly a vast difference in these two figures, and that difference greatly affects the cost-per-job figures. The cost-per-job figure also does not take into account the cost of running overseas offices.
The IDB also uses various forms of double counting in its yearly in statements and annual reports, claiming the same jobs promoted over more than one year. The IDB has been criticised for using these unrealistic figures and counting methods since the 1983 Northern Ireland Economic Council Report, yet it has resolutely refused to change this practice. Therefore when actual jobs are considered, the IDB’s performance in terms of job creation has been to say the least woefully inadequate.
In relation to equality issues it appears that the IDB has never taken equality seriously by actively promoting the siting of projects in economically marginalised TSN areas. In response to public pressure, the IDB promised to site 75% of jobs in TSN areas. Yet in the period 1988-97 just 30% of projects and 41% of jobs promoted went to TSN areas. When one looks closely at the figures the lack of adherence to TSN becomes even more appalling, with only 2·3% of IDB-assisted projects situated in west Belfast and none in the Moyle and Strabane District Council areas.
Instead of actively overturning this record and seriously tackling economic marginalisation and disadvantage, the criteria were simply broadened to include areas adjacent to TSN areas. This is such a wide category that the IDB can now claim to have successfully carried out their equality obligations when in fact there has been little operational change.
Up until this year the IDB made no effort to ensure that firms that have located in disadvantaged areas hired people from those areas. The IDB viewed the hiring practices of sponsored companies as the business of those companies. There is no monitoring of the equality effects of grant-aided companies hiring practices on groups such as Catholics, women or the long-term unemployed.
The Westminster Committee stated
"it is not enough to record only the location of projects the acid test is to measure the extent to which jobs are going to people who actually come from disadvantaged areas."
The IDB is now beginning to carry out monitoring on this basis. This to be welcomed as a step in the right direction and should be monitored by the Public Accounts Committee here.
12.00
Given the IDB’s failure to carry out its equality obligations thus far, it is therefore cause for concern that it was not obliged to publish a draft equality scheme. Instead, the Department’s equality scheme will also cover the IDB. The IDB is the largest recipient of public funding within the Department. Other agencies under the control of the Department are obliged to publish equality schemes. Therefore it is simply not good enough that the IDB should be exempt. Basic data on the religious and gender composition of workforces in IDB-sponsored companies must be maintained and published.
Statistics that measure actual job creation should be compiled. The IDB claims it must use the measure of job promotion because that is widely used by other agencies and allows it to measure its success against its competitors. This is a disingenuous argument. First, one method does not preclude it from using other methods for measuring performance. Secondly, the IDA in the South of Ireland publishes annual statistics of actual jobs in IDA-assisted companies by economic sector and location. It has carried out an annual survey of employment in all industry since 1973. That survey gathers data on employment in each company, including by gender. As the existing regulations require companies to report on the religious composition of their workforces, there is no excuse for the IDB’s avoiding the collection and publication of a similar survey of IDB-sponsored companies.
Another issue brought up by the Westminster Committee, and also the subject of other studies, has been the internal performance of the IDB — in particular, its failure to adequately assess the performance of its units, and especially its foreign offices. The Select Committee found that the IDB does not yet have a performance-measurement system that clearly demonstrates the relative and individual cost-effectiveness of its overseas offices, despite the high levels of costs involved in running these offices. Such internal accounting must be implemented. Not only is it necessary for assessing the efficiency of specific units, but it also has an additional impact on other statistics. As I mentioned earlier, cost-per-job figures are understated not only because of the use of inflated jobs promoted figures but further because they do not include the institutional costs of attracting companies.
The IDB also fails to collect data on the economic performance of grant-aided companies. The Select Committee found it unacceptable that it took the IDB five years to begin even basic monitoring of the economic efficiency of the firms it sponsored, even though it had been told to do so in a previous report in 1992-93. Having failed to adhere to Westminster recommendations, the IDB must be monitored in this regard. Moreover, it is crucial that the IDB extend its data collection and monitoring to other areas. It should be conducting annual surveys of each company’s performance. It should be looking at costs, whether the materials or services are purchased locally or imported, its profit rate, where it obtains its technology and at what costs, and so on. Citing a company confidentiality clause is not enough. The IDA has conducted a complete survey of components of sales, including scrutiny of costs and profits since the early 1980s. All companies are required to provide this by law. As the recent performance of the "Celtic tiger" demonstrates, such requirements have not affected in the least the IDA’s ability to attract companies.
There is also need for a review of IDB operations in promoting local economic development projects and jobs in indigenous companies. The IDB admits that it has failed badly in this respect. We must all recognise, whatever our concerns, that foreign companies and multinationals will play a role in the future development of our island economy. However, this should not be to the detriment of indigenous Irish industry. Overdependence on transnational corporations does not make for a healthy economy. Experience has shown that multinationals whose decisions are based on global success rather than local concerns are more likely to move away from a host locality if global market conditions dictate. The IDB would be better placed promoting local industry, which is rooted in local economies and is more likely to reinvest its profits in the local economy.
No one denies that the IDB has difficult job. Its activities have been severely hampered by several factors, including the political conflict and the inability to use policies like low taxation rates, which the much more successful IDA in the South has been able to do.
However, the IDB’s job is not made any easier by massaging figures to reflect better performance or by making grossly inflated claims. Keeping accurate records, carrying out rational accounting and putting in place adequate monitoring practices all represent good housekeeping.
The IDB has received massive sums of public money. It has the largest budget within the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. People are entitled to know what is being done with this money, how efficiently and successfully it is being used, and what improvements are going to be brought about within the IDB.
The resistance within the IDB over the years despite repeated studies and recommendations, be publicly accountable, to make positive changes, to institute rational accounting and monitoring methods is unacceptable. Furthermore, it leads one to wonder whether if the true cost of their activities were known, it would bring forth such public criticism as would convince those who hold the purse strings that some money which has gone to the IDB would be better spent elsewhere.
I ask the Assembly to vote in favour of this motion because one of the problems over the years has been the lack of accountability shown by the IDB.
Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Billy Bell: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee.
First, it gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to the valuable work carried out by the Public Accounts Committee at Westminster over recent years. That work has been based on reports prepared by the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland and by MrJohnDowdall and his staff in the Northern Ireland Audit Office. It has been their job to seek to ensure that Government Departments and their agencies fulfil their responsibilities to the taxpayer and that money voted by Parliament has been spent wisely and in a proper manner.
I know that MrDowdall and his staff have drawn the attention of Parliament to a number of instances where Departments have fallen short of this requirement. He will now carry out this important function for the Northern Ireland Assembly.
The independence of the Comptroller and Auditor General in exercising his functions is an essential element in the process of holding Northern Ireland Departments accountable to the taxpayer through elected representatives. Section 65 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 provides that he shall not be subject to the direction or control of any Minister, Northern Ireland Department, or the Northern Ireland Assembly. Taking that into account, I wonder how wise it was, or what the Business Committee were thinking about, to even propose that this motion be debated here today.
Section 60(3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 provides for Standing Orders to establish the Assembly’s Public Accounts Committee. The main statutory function of that Committee is to consider accounts and reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly.
The remit of the Assembly’s Public Accounts Committee is strictly limited to the consideration of reports prepared by the Comptroller and Auditor General. Since the legislation makes it clear that he cannot be directed by the Assembly in exercising his functions, it follows that the Assembly cannot direct the Public Accounts Committee as the motion seeks to do.
We all have a number of concerns in relation to the report on the IDB’s performance. However, there is a clear procedure already. As the report was submitted by the Committee on Public Accounts, the next stage in the process would be for the Department of Finance and Personnel to respond by producing a memorandum of reply. That procedure is based on the principle that, in replying to reports of the Committee, the Government should provide considered responses to the recommendations, which must first be given to Parliament.
This is a long-established procedure, and it will apply to any future reports to this Assembly by my Committee. Sir RegEmpey will undoubtedly want to carefully consider the issues raised in the report, and provide a measured response through the memorandum of reply. That reply is due to be completed next month. In those circumstances, Members should be aware that the Minister will not be able to respond at this stage to detailed issues in the report.
Although my Committee awaits publication of the Department of Finance and Personnel memorandum with interest, it will be a response to the Committee of Public Accounts, and it will be for that Committee to decide if the response is acceptable. The Comptroller and Auditor General will of course monitor any undertakings given in that response and report to my Committee any concerns about their implementation.
The recommendation of the Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts that my Committee should keep a watching brief on this issue has already been drawn to the attention of Committee Members. The Assembly’s Public Accounts Committee, however, can only take this matter forward in the context of any future Northern Ireland Audit Office reports on the work of the IDB. My contention is that we cannot be directed by this motion.

Mr John Dallat: I would like to pick up on what Mr Bell has said. If we are not directed, I hope that at least we will be influenced. That is what is important. As Chairperson of the Audit Committee and a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I welcome the report referred to in the motion. The under-performance of the IDB is an issue which the Public Accounts Committee will, in time, have to take on board as part of a programme of work which is already under review. I have before me the business for next Wednesday, which deals with road safety in a very comprehensive way — one of the major issues concerning Northern Ireland at the moment.
The Public Audit Office’s function is to ensure that the Assembly gets value for money. That is achieved by providing the Assembly with independent information and advice about how economically, efficiently and effectively Departments and agencies and other bodies use their resources.
The public auditor also gives help to audited bodies on how to improve their performance to achieve value for money. Clearly the Assembly’s Public Accounts Committee must be concerned that the IDB achieved its annual targets for job promotion in only four of the nine years under review. There will be concern too about the number of jobs that remained in place. The absence of a set of performance measures to demonstrate the relative and individual cost-effectiveness of the IDB’s overseas offices is perhaps one of the most alarming disclosures in the report. Clearly, a Government agency charged with inward investment and having no formal records of their performance is mind-boggling, to say the least.
On a positive note, we welcome the IDB’s assurance that in future it will monitor the cost-effectiveness of its overseas offices and sector campaigns. However, it is essential that the weaknesses exposed in the IDB be taken on board by our Public Accounts Committee.
Now, for the first time, we have a responsibility to ensure that the IDB delivers. The admission that it failed, over the nine-year period reviewed, to attract any inward investment to seven disadvantaged areas, including two areas of social need, is alarming. The further disclosure that the IDB has only begun to monitor the impact of inward investment on disadvantaged areas is also a cause for concern. Without pre-empting the findings of the Public Accounts Committee, I have no doubt that the IDB will be asked to ensure that what it promises is delivered.
Now that the Public Accounts Committee is up and running, I, as Chairman of the Audit Committee, hope that there will be opportunities to scrutinise the work of all Government Departments with a view to improving performance. That includes value for money. As Chairman of the Audit Committee, I can report that there have been several formal and informal meetings with the Comptroller and Auditor General, at which my Vice-Chairman, MrBillyHutchinson, has also been present. A meeting of the Audit Committee was held last week, and another is scheduled for Tuesday. The Public Accounts Committee meets on Wednesday.
Finally, I take this opportunity to assure the House that the Comptroller and Auditor General is not only able but willing to deal with this and with any other issue that Members feel is of concern. It is a developing process. Resources are obviously limited, but I am impressed by the high standards to which the Northern Ireland Audit Office operates. The draft programme of work already agreed by the Public Accounts Committee is impressive and will make a significant impact on how the Assembly delivers on its responsibilities for efficiency, value for money and fairness. As time goes by, new and fresh ideas will emerge from the scrutiny responsibilities of the Northern Ireland Audit Office that will result in joined-up government, bringing many benefits to the people of Northern Ireland. I do not accept that the Assembly has no role to play. The Public Accounts Committee has a critical and evolving role to play on this issue and on many others that will emerge in time.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: The House of Commons Committee’s report on the IDB is an indictment of the failure of the IDB, over the medium term, to make a significant and lasting impact on job creation, employment and investment in the Province. The report is littered with serious criticisms of the board’s practices in attracting investment and its inability to cope with market demands and provide accurate information about its own activities. Without saying so openly, the report practically calls the IDB a failure. It is heavily peppered with criticisms such as
"A substantial proportion of jobs promised were not, in fact, created",
"taxpayers’ money is put at risk",
"we are most dissatisfied with the provision by IDB of misleading information."
It also says that the IDB’s overseas offices secured no new projects, despite spending £80million.
This is a catalogue of shame and long-term disaster. We are indebted to the House of Commons for pulling no punches. They have given us a wake-up call. If the IDB does not buck itself up, the situation will get worse. It is now for the Minister, SirRegEmpey, to respond to the detailed and serious recommendations in this report and say what his Department is going to do to repair the damage and ensure that the future of the IDB is a success.
It would be easy to come to the House, give the IDB a good kicking, shout "Hurray" and walk away, but if the House is really serious about improving investment, opportunity and employment in Northern Ireland, it will take a different approach. Pious hand-washing and condemning while doing nothing is of no use.
It is in all of our interests for the IDB to become a success story as a result of this report rather than wallow in its failures. Because of the way in which the motion was brought forward, we will not be supporting it. Nor do we believe that it can be supported. The motion has been pre-empted by the recommendations of the report itself. If the Member who moved the motion had read the report, she would have seen that the House of Commons commended it to the Public Accounts Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly for continuing attention. That has already happened, and it is being considered by the PAC in Northern Ireland.
Sinn Féin/IRA has shot itself in the foot by bringing this motion forward. It is loathsome in the extreme that IRA/Sinn Féin has the audacity to criticise the Industrial Development Board. Yes, the IDB’s record is poor and the IDB must improve itself. But at least the IDB, misguided though it has been, had the best interests of Northern Ireland at heart.
That can certainly not be said of IRA/Sinn Fein. Not only has it detracted from investment by its long-term bombing campaign, but it has shot industrialists, extorted money from building and investment programmes, done untold damage to Northern Ireland’s public-relations schemes, and killed workers. It boasted to the world that its ambition was to destroy Northern Ireland, and now it comes here and criticises the IDB for doing a terrible job. Despite IRA/Sinn Fein the IDB tried to make a good job of things. If the situation were not so serious, the inverted evil of Sinn Fein would be a joke, as I think most Members on this side of the House would agree.
This report by the House of Commons says that the disadvantaged areas of Northern Ireland must now become priority investment areas. It singles out two specific areas — one in Mid Ulster and the other in my constituency of North Antrim. The report urges the IDB to attract investment to North Antrim — to Moyle in particular. I hope that the Minister will respond to this positively. In the report an amazing excuse is given by the IDB to the House of Commons. It claimed that it was unable to attract investment to the Moyle area because the location was bad. Only the IDB would dare to say that the Causeway coast, which has a major research university on its doorstep and a young well-educated workforce, is not a suitable area for investment. This is especially the case since the IDB owns sites less then 10miles from Moyle in the Ballymoney area, and we could indeed have major investments there. The IDB refused to invest in the Moyle area despite the fact that there are excellent opportunities there and 10·6% unemployment.
I hope that, as a result of this report, the Minister will prompt the IDB to develop a strategy for investment in that area — a strategy that will encourage inward investment and also encourage indigenous employers to develop and act positively for the whole area. If we are to attract disadvantaged people into employment such a strategy must be created. However, we are not going to pre-empt the Minister who, we hope, will be able to respond positively on these issues.
The reality is that the IDB dropped its ambitions because of the problems it faced as a result of terrorism. As a House we must encourage the IDB to lift its eyes again to get a vision and to create a strategy for investment which is both ambitious and achievable. We all understand the terrible blight that terrorism has inflicted on Northern Ireland, but the IDB cannot keep using that as an excuse. Rather, it will be judged on its ability to overcome the additional problems associated with Northern Ireland.
I do not believe that the Belfast Agreement has made things much better in terms of public relations. I have spoken to industrialists, and I am sure that many of them look cautiously at investment in Northern Ireland when they consider that one of the Ministers of the Crown is also a godfather of IRA/Sinn Féin.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I ask the Member to restrict his comments to the report.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I am speaking about the report and the ramifications for Northern Ireland. The reality is that investors and industrialists have spoken to me about their concerns. They have made statements in the press that they will look cautiously at Northern Ireland, given that one of the Ministers of the Crown is also a godfather of Provisional IRA/Sinn Féin. That is a fact. It is something that people might not like to be said in the House, but it has to be said if we are going to be honest about achieving investment in NorthernIreland. At the weekend I was reading a book written by EamonnMallie and PatrickBishop. I was refreshing my memory — it stated, with specific regard to the long-term investment problems in Northern Ireland, that in 1976 the IRA army council gave its approval to the new Northern command. One of its leaders was, of course, MrMcGuinness, our Minister of Education. Mallie goes on to say that the first action of Northern command was
"across the whole of Northern Ireland … a wave of incendiary attacks on hotels".
Today SinnFéin has the audacity to criticise the IDB when its leading members organised the campaign that made the work of the IDB doubly difficult for all those years. The proposer of this motion should hang her head in shame.

Mr Barry McElduff: Will the Member give way?

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Get away.
The IDB headquarters in Belfast was bombed by this crowd over here — IRA/Sinn Féin — in the early days of the troubles, in some of the first actions of Northern command. Now it has the audacity to condemn the IDB. The IDB has been sweeping up the results of bomb attacks on its own offices, so it is little wonder that it has had difficulty attracting investment into the Province. Yes, the IDB could have done better, and it did back the wrong horses at times. Some of the examples in this report about Hualon and other companies clearly indicate that, but the reality is that the IDB’s job was made doubly difficult by this crowd over here — SinnFéin.
This report indicates that the IDB spends, in real terms, almost £40,000 per job. That is an astounding figure, given that less than 50% of the investment proposals are successful. I hope that the IDB and LEDU can, together, come up with a strategy that will allow more money to be spent on LEDU projects — instead of vast sums going to create short-term jobs, some of which last less than 10 years. LEDU projects give indigenous companies the opportunity to pay and increase their workforce and to develop indigenous employment. Indigenous employers stay here longer because they have a long-term commitment to the Province.
I hope that the Minister will take up the recommendations and ensure that the very detailed criticisms made of the IDB in this report are responded to thoroughly. We look forward to the House of Commons continuing to monitor the IDB. A number of recommendations have come to my attention. I have skited over some of them briefly already. Recommendation8 urges the IDB to attract investment to
"disadvantaged areas … and those locations which have enjoyed little or no such investment in the past".
We know where those locations are, and I hope that they will attract successful investments in the future. Projects should be matched to areas of unemployment. In my constituency, Moyle has 10·6% unemployment. Moyle and Ballymoney should attract an investment programme. In the last 10years there has not been one successful investment in the Ballymoney area. That is alarming, given the fact that the IDB holds great swaths of land in that part of the Province.
It is essential that indigenous companies be given the opportunity to develop. If the IDB cannot attract industrialists and inward investment, then let it encourage local companies to invest in the Province and make a success of things. Yes, the IDB has had a difficult job. Yes, this report indicts it for some startling failures, but the reality is that Sinn Feín/IRA bears a great deal of the responsibility for the major problems faced by investors in this Province. On that basis, we will certainly not be associated with a Sinn Féin motion on this issue.

Mr Sean Neeson: I am somewhat surprised that this motion is before the House today, for it is out of order, and the Business Committee must bear some responsibility for that. It is important to bear in mind though that the report is very alarming and should be taken seriously indeed.
A number of issues need to be addressed by the IDB, but I regret that we have not yet heard its response to the report. Convention at Westminster allows a period to respond, and that period is not up. As Deputy Chairman of the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee, I was looking forward to having the IDB before the Committee to answer the criticisms made in the report and to answer my questions and those of my Colleagues.
Clearly, there are issues which need to be addressed, but we have to also accept that we are living in a time of change. This report was drawn up for the years 1988-97. The ceasefires had not been declared, and there was a very unstable environment in Northern Ireland. I hope that the announcement made this morning about the arms dumps will give us the confidence that will enable us to create a stable environment with increased opportunities for attracting inward investment and creating more indigenous jobs. Those are the opportunities that need to be grasped.
We are currently looking at the document ‘Strategy 2010’. One of the issues that it raises which is very pertinent to the report is that of tax incentives. My party has consistently argued that the Assembly should have tax-varying and tax-raising powers. Until that happens, we will be running behind our nearest neighbours in the Irish Republic, particularly on corporation tax.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I tend to agree with the Member on corporation tax. However, the tax-varying issue has been part of the Member’s party’s policy since 1997, yet it has failed to deliver. Why was there no successful House of Commons or House of Lords amendment to the 1998 Bill that would have given this House tax-varying powers like those of the Scottish Parliament?

Mr Sean Neeson: I regret that our point has not yet been accepted, but I hope that it will be seriously considered by all parties concerned when we come to review the agreement.
We must also bear in mind the positive side of the IDB: 86,000 people are currently employed in Northern Ireland because of IDB ventures. These issues must be taken on board as well.
I wish to make two final points.
The Chairman of the Committee and I had a meeting with the Minister recently, and he raised the point about reductions in the ETI budget — what was then the DED budget — over the years. I fully concur with him that there are opportunities for inward investment there as a result of the new environment, and I think it is vitally important that the budget should not be reduced, regardless of the pressures that come from elsewhere.
Finally — and this is no criticism of Mr Billy Bell — I wish to reiterate the point that the Chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee at Westminster comes from the Opposition, and I still believe that it is morally wrong that the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee of this Assembly should come from a party that is included in the Executive.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I too welcome the recent publication of the PAC report. It is obviously going to be of great interest to many of our constituents. However, now is not the time for a full-scale debate. Such a debate can properly be held after a formal response to the report following the due procedures as outlined by the Chairman of our Public Accounts Committee, as said in Parliament.
To borrow — rather, adapt — one of Shakespeare’s phrases, I am speaking neither to praise the IDB nor to bury it.
What we can do is highlight a number of issues which this House can subsequently carefully evaluate. We can start by looking at several things which can be said in defence of the IDB’s record. The first point has already been put quite well by the Member from North Antrim. Obviously the actuality of violence and the threat of violence over the last 30or so years has been a very big factor in explaining why Northern Ireland’s record, and latterly the record of the IDB in terms of job creation, has not reached that of its counterpart in the Republic of Ireland or, indeed, those of the comparable agencies in Wales and Scotland.
All parties in this House must recognise that point. The second thing which can be said in defence of the IDB’s position is that it is very easy for ourselves as elected representatives to demand that jobs and factories be put in certain places. I could, for example, note the finding in the PAC report that the Greater Belfast’s share of inward investment has been only roughly half of its share of unemployment. It is easy for all of us to do that and demand that jobs come to certain localities. However, we need to recognise that we work in the context of a market economy and there are distinct limits on the extent to which the state can order companies to go to this village or that village, or that county or locality. We are not dealing with some of sort of Stalinist system of central planning, nor indeed are we attempting to go back to the heyday of so-called indicative planning, which was tried in Northern Ireland during the 1960s and to some extent failed.
In subsequent Assembly consideration of the PAC report we will obviously need to take on board the various areas of concern which it raises, the first being the very large discrepancy between the promotion of jobs and the actual creation of jobs on the ground. This is nothing new. As the mover of the motion noted, a variety of reports, including those done by the Northern Ireland Economic Council, have been pointing this out over the years. Secondly, we obviously need to look at the cost per job, and that must include all of the costs of promotion as the PAC report has outlined.
Thirdly, there is the whole issue of targeting social need. To what extent have jobs actually gone to TSN areas?
With regard to jobs in TSN areas, how far do the people who took those jobs live from the TSN areas? Linked to this, and to a point that I made earlier, there is inevitably a trade-off, a difficult balance, that has to be struck. We can attempt to skew the location of jobs, but if we do so, efficiency suffers and the costs to the Exchequer rise. And that is public money which could be used more profitably in other ways to combat poverty. We need to look at that balance.
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)
Finally, when the House comes to consider this report and the long-term performance of the IDB formally we will need to do so in context — and it is a worrying context. I think it was MrNeeson who made reference to ‘Strategy 2010’. It is of great concern that in ‘Strategy 2010’ there was no critical evaluation, in any real sense, of the work of the IDB. Some commentators would say that that was not an accident. The way in which the former Department of Economic Development structured ‘Strategy 2010’ and the composition of its steering committee were quite deliberately designed to shield the IDB from the type of critical evaluation that, over the years, has been given to the work of the IDA in Dublin or similar agencies in, for example, Edinburgh and Cardiff.
I support the spirit of the motion, yet, because of the qualifications relating to procedure, which were properly raised by my Colleague Mr Bell, I cannot vote for it.

Mr Speaker: The Member has just made comment about procedural issues that were raised by the Chairman of the Assembly’s Public Accounts Committee and a number of other Members. I need to make a ruling in this regard.
First, in producing its report the Public Accounts Committee at Westminster requires the IDB to respond within a period. That is clearly laid down, and it may well be that the Minister’s response will be limited by the IDB’s having to make some necessary enquiries before responding to the PAC at Westminster.
That is wholly different from the assumption that the Assembly is not entitled to consider this matter and respond under the terms of the motion. Some people across the water do not yet understand the impact of devolution and what this Assembly, and the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, can and cannot do. It seems that that is also the case even in this Chamber.
The Public Accounts Committee’s report on the IDB is a public document, and anyone can comment on it. However, the IDB has a particular responsibility to do so and will respond within the necessary time. That is a ministerial responsibility, but the Assembly is entitled to debate a public document and to express its view, and that is what it is properly doing.
That that view might be taken into account by the IDB and the Public Accounts Committee at Westminster is not unreasonable, but it is proper for the Assembly to debate this matter, and I rule that the motion is competent.
In general recommendation xix of the PAC report it is recognised that the Public Accounts Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly should attend to the matters raised and give its continuing attention to them post-devolution. We are in a transitional period, and there may be questions about whether the Public Accounts Committee at Westminster will retain a right to address cases of substantial expenditure.
There may also be questions about procedures for this Assembly’s Public Accounts Committee and what matters it may or may not deal with, but those are entirely separate issues. Members should not hold back from expressing their views on this publicly available document. Subsequently there will have to be some understanding between the devolved Assemblies and Westminster, on a convention basis, I suspect, as to how deeply things are considered, but this Chamber has the right to continue to debate this motion. It is a competent motion.
I have already made it my practice when the Assembly adopts motions which relate to business elsewhere — the recent motion on the Postal Services Bill is an example — to forward the matter to the relevant Minister, with the Official Report, so that due consideration can be given to the views of the Assembly. That is proper practice, and I intend to do the same with regard to this matter. I felt that it was important to make this ruling. Without clarification, much of the debate might end up nugatory.

Mr Conor Murphy: On a point of order, A Cheann Comhairle. Does your ruling and advice mean that those Members who agreed with the spirit of the motion but were somewhat concerned about its procedural correctness can now support it entirely?

Mr Speaker: I can only clarify procedural questions. If that has laid some Members’ concerns to rest, so be it, but it would certainly be quite wrong for me to give even the slightest smidgen of advice as to how Members may vote. All I can do is clarify the procedural matters.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Further to your ruling, Mr Speaker. If this House decides to follow the Committee on Public Accounts recommendation (xix), which you read, will we have established the convention that when the House of Commons commends a report to this House, we consider it on the basis that it has been commended to us? If that is the case, we are today establishing convention, and that should not be knocked out of place either.

Mr Speaker: The Assembly, through its Business Committee, has agreed to consider this report on foot of a motion brought forward by Dr O’Hagan. That is an entirely proper thing to do. My clarification is that procedurally it is entirely correct to do so within the boundaries set out in our Standing Orders, in the motion itself and in relationships that are already established.
It may be that this will quickly become a convention in the same fashion as routes rather quickly become traditional routes. This process might quickly become a conventional process. I cannot say whether that is a good or a bad thing in either circumstance, but it is there, it is proper, and if the Assembly takes the view that it should debate such matters, I see no reason why it should not do so.

Mr Peter Weir: MrSpeaker, do you agree that, while it is perfectly appropriate for you to rule that it is competent for the House to debate a subject, there is a difference between the competence of the Assembly and whether Members feel that now is the appropriate time to debate the issue, or that this is the appropriate manner? That is a different issue, though it does not impinge on whether the House is able to deal with this matter.

Mr Speaker: That is, of course, true. Members might have other views. What must be understood — and it may go some way towards the point mentioned by Mr Paisley Jnr — is that, given that one cannot have recurring debates on the same question, Members cannot assume that an opportunity for further debate will arise. That is an entirely different matter.

Mr Seamus Close: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I recognise, appreciate and accept your ruling with regard to the competence of the House to debate the issue before us. Does your ruling also extend to the directive that is involved in the motion — namely, that the Assembly is going on to direct the Northern Ireland Assembly Public Accounts Committee?

Mr Speaker: It is entirely proper for the Assembly to direct that a Committee give attention to a matter. That is what this motion suggest — that the Northern Ireland Assembly Public Accounts Committee give continuing attention to the issues raised in the report. It is entirely proper that the Committee should do that. How it chooses to give that attention, and whether it might attend positively or negatively to all those matters, is a wholly different question.
The terms of the motion make it clear that it is not something that can simply be ignored. The Assembly’s Public Accounts Committee may make its own judgements about precisely how it attends to the matter. It may agree or disagree with all of it. The motion is simply directing that the Committee pay attention to it. That seems to be a competent thing to do.
There may well be a procedural question — a question of Standing Orders — as to whether the Northern Ireland Assembly Public Accounts Committee may have wider or lesser powers extended to it within the requirements of the Act. That is another matter. However, this is a competent motion.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: Mr Speaker, I appreciate your outlining the position of the Business Committee. As a member of that Committee I think we were coming under flak from parties whose Whips sat in the same room and did not complain. The point was that the Committee took a decision that the motion was competent and brought it forward to the Floor of the House.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)
Mr Neeson said that during the period covered by the report — 1988-97 — there was still a lot of violence and that this affected the level of inward investment. I am sure that, on reading the report and noting the issues that must have raised for the Public Accounts Committee, everybody in this House, including the Minister responsible, would be concerned. We can talk about violence affecting jobs here for the last 30 years. However, if we look at the record of inward investment we see that there were foreign companies here well before the ceasefires were in place. They did not seem to have much of a problem.
We need to look at the reasons the IDB cannot respond or has not done so. The hon Member for North Antrim said that the IDB had backed a few wrong horses. If I had backed as many wrong horses as the IDB I would be looking to find out the number of Gamblers Anonymous. It makes mistake after mistake after mistake.
With regard to the levels of violence in the past and job creation, a number of places — for instance, Antrim — have done very well for inward investment. It is not that far from north Belfast or from other places where there has been conflict, but we still could not attract jobs to those areas. I do not necessarily believe that that argument holds.
My argument is about the way taxpayers’ money was spent. In some cases great risks were taken with that money, and it did not deliver jobs. The records of the IDB and LEDU indicate that the lifespans of the jobs they create are about 3.8 years and 4.2 years. This is about the length of time the grants last. People continually talk about a benefit culture. We have got into a grants culture and a benefit culture for inward investment. We need to look at better ways of doing this.
A number of Members have pointed out that we have not done so well for indigenous companies. I would like to see us taking the same risk for indigenous companies as we have taken for the IDB. One thing is for sure: the indigenous companies are going nowhere; they are from here, and they are based here. Most of them started out as family businesses and have grown. We should be making sure they grow even bigger.
That is not to say that we do not want to see inward investment. Of course we do. It would be madness for this House to suggest that we do not. We want to create an IDB that performs much better. Take its performance overseas. Any of us who have been on trips abroad and have talked to people in foreign cities will know that the IDB could perform a lot better. Everybody knows that.
We have met industrialists who say that if they wanted to come here, the last people they would even talk to are those in the IDB. That has nothing to do with the people who work there; rather it has to do with the way it operates and the rules and regulations that restrict it. Those are the things that we need to change. I am convinced that the people who work there can perform at a better level. We need to ensure that the Minister is given support from the Committees and from the Floor of this House in finding the best way forward.
We need to focus on how we give them the tools to bring the jobs here. We will not solve the problem by talking continually about IRA bombs and murders by loyalist paramilitaries, and so on. We must live in the real world and look at how to get jobs into the areas that most need them. The best thing to do is focus on this report, see what the problems are and try to correct them.
This is not about kicking the IDB or anyone else. It is about having a debate, because a number of our constituents are concerned. People out there looking for jobs cannot get them, and they are asking questions about people here. Let us look at the number of jobs the IDB announces. It will tell us tomorrow that 1,500 jobs are going to appear on a particular site. Do we ever see 1,500 jobs? No. Those are the sorts of things we need to get to grips with. Why do we continually raise expectations? All this reflects badly on the IDB. If we were to look at the number of jobs it said it was bringing and then at the number of jobs it actually brought, it would be a very bad picture indeed.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Does the Member accept that one of this report’s criticisms of the IDB is that it does not yet have performance-measurement systems in place, the recommendation being that such systems should be introduced? The House of Commons commends the report to the House, and if we accept that position, those measurement systems will be in place so that in future the problems the Member has rightly identified will be dealt with.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: I thank the hon Member for his comments, with which I agree. As a member of the Business Committee, I wanted to see this motion come before the House so that we could discuss these very matters. Having met sufficient of the industrialists who deal with these matters, the hon Member knows as well as I that we need to put such things in place. If we do not have them we shall not be able to perform at the necessary level to give confidence to taxpayers and Members of this Assembly representing those people.
We need to make sure that we support DrDara O’Hagan’s motion and move things on. If we do not do so, that will send an extremely bad message to our constituents regarding job creation. I want to ensure we can bring jobs to this Province, irrespective of where. However, I should like to make sure we get them in TSN areas. Those jobs would be extremely valuable to the people there, as well as to this Assembly and to the peace process as a whole.

Mr Donovan McClelland: It might be helpful for me to tell Members about some of the timing arrangements. I hope to suspend this debate at 1.30 pm and resume it at 5.00 pm. The sitting will be suspended at 1.30pm, resuming at 2.30pm for ministerial questions.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: I welcome the report and the debate on the issues it raises. It is not appropriate to go backwards. We could use this occasion to hurl abuse and poke each other in the eye. However, if we did that we would undermine the very basis of confidence our economy requires. I should like to think anything we do in this House gives support to the Minister and the IDB in their considerable efforts to ensure we get the economy we desire, for it is the engine that will provide for all our social spending. If we do not have a healthy, strong economy, we shall not in the long term have the funds for the Health Service and the top-class education system to which we aspire.
I am equally concerned that some of my Colleagues’ comments highlighted the risks involved. We must be clear that part of the problem with our economy has been that we have been averse to risk. Perhaps the IDB has been taking the wrong risks, or taking the right risks in the wrong places. I am not sure, and it will take some time to tease out the detail. However, I wish to make it quite clear that it is essential that we be prepared to take risks in the long term, for otherwise we shall not succeed.
That is the big difference between our economy and the American economy. Those who succeed in America are those who take risks. In the United States people go bankrupt one, two, three, four times, yet on the fifth they may come up with an outstanding success. The cutting edge of technological developments, whether it be in information and communication technology, multi-media or biotechnology, requires risk. Venture capital is also important. If venture capitalists achieve one winner out of 10, they feel all right; if they achieve two out of 10, they feel successful. We do not need to run like lemmings over a cliff on this. Certainly, there are issues involved, but we have to know the difference between taking responsible risks and taking irresponsible, reckless risks.
There are glaring mistakes and omissions in the report, as well as a lack of accountability. This must be corrected. That is different from taking risks. We must refocus, re-energise and ensure that all our efforts go towards developing our economy to the maximum. We should not talk down the examples of success and the good work done at times by the IDB in difficult circumstances, but the underperformance and misinformation mentioned in this report will not do anyone any favours if we are to create a healthy economic environment, one in which entrepreneurship and economic prosperity flourish.
A great deal of work still needs to be done on ‘Strategy 2010’. It was hailed initially as being the be-all and end-all, but gradually we have come to realise that ‘Strategy 2010’ was only the beginning of a process. We must now ensure that we are all singing from the same hymn sheet, that we are all marching together in the same direction, and that we are all broadly agreed — maybe not in every detail — on what we are doing, and where we are trying to go.
I am concerned about false figures and headlines that provide jobs that are not delivered. These serious inaccuracies lead to cynicism of, and disinterest in, any publicity or announcements that the IDB makes. Many of the jobs it has announced in the past were temporary and short-lived.
There are also the issues of cost-effectiveness, the measurement of the function of the overseas offices and project appraisal. Having gone through the various recommendations that emerged, I believe that immediate and urgent pressure must be brought to bear on our own Public Accounts Committee, the Department, and the Minister, to ensure that when jobs have been promised, there is a reasonable chance that they will be created, and that if they are short-term or part-time jobs, that is made clear.
I am seriously concerned about the creative accountancy that is involved, suggestions regarding some of the costs that were attributed to jobs but not included, and the cost of some of the overseas offices. The report mentions using the Internet. Could a strong case not be made for scaling down some of the overseas offices, utilising an Internet system and mobile support unit, based at home but which could respond when and where it was needed? There must be ways and means of ensuring that our job promotion operation is cost-effective and efficient. These are the issues highlighted by the proposer of the motion today. The motion is down because we need to take account of it. I welcome the ruling from MrSpeaker that set the parameters. It is entirely appropriate for the House to discuss this and, indeed, for the Business Committee to put it on the agenda.
I would welcome a more comprehensive opportunity later for a debate on many of the issues raised. Nevertheless, the point I want to emphasise is that there is a desperate need — if we are to go forward with a healthy and expanding economy, particularly in the field of new technology — for honesty, openness and transparency, balanced with the need not to talk ourselves into a corner or into a loss of confidence. We must learn from the serious mistakes highlighted in the Public Accounts Committee’s report. We need to put those right and go forward steadily, gaining the broad support and confidence of the community. If the IDB and Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment do not have public support at home, they are unlikely to be able to sell themselves and NorthernIreland abroad.
Finally, I want to raise one of my hobby horses, which may not be appropriate to the Public Accounts Committee or the issue at stake. My concern is that the IDB has not managed — I will not put it any stronger — to come to terms fully with the whole swath of new technology. While we do have some involvement in communication technology, perhaps it is at the lower end of the market. I would welcome much closer attention to information and communication technology; movement and effort on biotechnology, particularly in the fields of life and health sciences, and closer attention to the emerging multimedia opportunities where growth is currently at 37% per annum. Perhaps we have been a little shy and reserved about grappling with some of the opportunities that lie therein.
I am broadly in support of the motion. It is only right that we should debate the issues raised, as they are pertinent to all of us. In doing so, we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. We should be constructive in our criticism to ensure that we retain the credibility and strength to go along. It would be disastrous if we were to do ourselves damage in discussion.

Ms Jane Morrice: I support the motion. It mirrors the general recommendations of the Westminster Public Accounts Committee that has been mentioned:
"Should devolved government be re-established in the region, this is a subject which we would commend to the Public Accounts Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly for continuing attention".
That is what we are doing this afternoon.
As a member of the Public Accounts Committee and of the Enterprise, Trade and Industry Committee, I have a direct interest in the public accountability for IDB spending and in the future of the IDB and its role in the economic development of this region. We have listened to a great deal of criticism of the IDB. I agree with those who say that this report should be used as a means of ensuring that the future work of the IDB is open, transparent, properly targeted and appraised. I agree with those who have said "Let us learn from the lessons."
I want to pick up on what MrHutchinson said about the need for the IDB to start taking serious risks for indigenous companies. It is essential that there is a balance between attracting inward investment such as the high-tech models from outside and supporting local industry. I am keen to ensure that the IDB does not close its door on things that Northern Ireland is famous for, such as the textile industry. I would like to see the IDB and the economic advisors take a strategic approach to restructuring the textile industry here. I would also like to see greater support for and innovation and research and development in successful areas such as our "clean, green image" food processing. That would allow us to capitalise on what we do well. Those issues will be important to feed into the review of economic development here and the role of the IDB.
We recognise the importance of providing support for new hi-tech industries, such as call centres and financial centres, but we need to ensure that when support is given to these new industries, the jobs that are created are properly contracted and secure jobs. We do not want to be used as a back door for cheap labour. The need for secure jobs is highlighted by the recent announcement by British Telecom that it is going to move its BT Cellnet operations to England. More than 200 jobs could be lost in Belfast if that happens, and I am hoping that the IDB is taking this on board and doing something about it.
In recent meetings with IDB officials we have noted that the situation appears to be improving. I have seen serious attempts to inform and brief Assembly Members and others about their work. We hope that the new political climate in Northern Ireland will make the work of the IDB less important as foreign investors queue up to put their money in what will undoubtedly become the perfect place in the world, and certainly in Europe, to invest.

Mr Sammy Wilson: My Colleague from North Antrim has already made clear our decision on this motion, but I want to re-emphasise the point. We oppose this motion not simply because we are unhappy with the procedure, as described by Mr Bell. We are unhappy about its source.
I am especially unhappy about what I believe to be the real motivation behind it — namely, an attempt by IRA/Sinn Féin to rewrite the history of the last 30 years. We are going to be subjected every week, I suspect, to the nauseating spectacle of Sinn Féin Members bringing forward motions to show how concerned they are about the ordinary issues which affect people on a day-to-day basis, while ignoring the fact that they have been partly responsible, and sometimes completely so, for causing the very problems to which they are now drawing attention. Last week we had Mr McHugh lamenting — [Interruption]

Mr Donovan McClelland: Mr Wilson, it would be useful if you were to restrict your comments to this report.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I think they have been restricted to the motion. I do not know if you want instant gratification or whether you are prepared to allow me to lead up to the point I want to make.
Last week we had a debate on the closure of post offices. For the past 30 years post offices have been held up and bombed. Postmasters and postmistresses have been killed. Yet SinnFéin was concerned last week about the decline in the number of post offices. And today it is jobs.
For 30 years the job of the IDB has been made practically impossible by the destructive actions of members of IRA/Sinn Féin. I remember, in another place, a member of the party opposite proudly proclaiming that they would demolish Belfast brick by brick. Then they complain about social disadvantage and no jobs. They point the finger at the IDB when its problem was caused by IRA/Sinn Féin’s economic warfare against the people of this Province.
The first reason we are opposed to this motion is that it would give credibility to the hypocrisy and two-facedness of its authors. Having said that, I should point out that the report does list some valid concerns which need to be highlighted here today — concerns which hold for the Assembly in dealing with civil servants from various bodies. I want to emphasise the points made by AlasdairMcDonnell and IanPaisley that this is not an exercise in bashing the IDB, although the report does point us to what needs to be done to make sure that government in Northern Ireland is made more accountable. The Assembly and its Committees can learn from that.
Another concern is the lack of information. The report stated in paragraph 5 (xii) that the PAC was dissatisfied with the IDB provision of misleading information on the write-off costs of the Hualon Project. That failure to provide accurate information is unacceptable. We must stress that it is incumbent upon all witnesses who appear before the Committees to ensure they are properly briefed on the subject being examined. I do not believe this is unique to the IDB. A few weeks ago, on the Education Committee, we could have said the same about officials who came along from the Department of Education and who, I believe, treated the House, through the Education Committee, with utter contempt. This is endemic, because after 30 years of direct rule, civil servants have not been used to the level of scrutiny they would have had in other parts of the United Kingdom or in other democracies in the world. This warning to the IDB officials should be treated as a general warning to the Civil Service as a whole.
There is also a lack of information on the cost of overseas offices. We do not know what they cost. I tried to find the IDB on the Internet and it does not have a site. Here is a body which is supposedly promoting modern industry, to which the House of Commons has to commend the use of the Internet. It seems anachronistic that a body trying to promote high-tech jobs still relies on people using shoe leather to walk around the world — a fairly expensive walk, an £80 million walk.
I notice in the report a statement that I am sure will warm the Minister’s heart:
"IDB needs to improve their ability to respond promptly, clearly and accurately."
It does not use the terminology we are used to in Northern Ireland, but the words are similar: "clarity and certainty". We wish to see some clarity and certainty. Given the practice that the Minister has at seeking clarity and certainty and at getting clarity and certainty about the things that he has got clarity and certainty about, I am sure that we will get that clarity and certainty over the period of his stewardship of the IDB. It is appalling that the kind of basic information that the House of Commons would have sought was not available.
The second matter is the failure to hit job targets. There is a need to keep tabs on the promises that are made. There is no point in the IDB giving grant aid to firms and getting promises of jobs. I understand that this cannot be totally accurate. Circumstances change, and sometimes technology changes. Markets change, and one cannot be absolutely certain that the job targets set will always be met. However, it is important that the Minister ensure that when targets are set, they are met. The Minister’s record, or at least that of his party, on having targets met has been appalling. I hope he will be more successful at getting job targets met than he is at getting the IRA’s targets on decommissioning met. That is an aside, but I hope he heard it.
My last point is on disadvantaged areas. There are disadvantaged areas in nearly every constituency. Nobody can claim a monopoly on disadvantage. Some of that disadvantage, as I said earlier, has been self-imposed by people who have gone out of their way to make areas difficult for industrialists to invest in. We cannot pretend, as Esmond Birnie said, that the IDB can say to an industrialist "Go there", and the industrialist will jump up and go there. The skills he needs must match those available in the area. Very often an industrialist will go where he can get support from similar industries and not be sitting in isolation.
Certain areas have an image. I accept that it makes good economic sense to match areas of unemployment with job opportunities, but the other point made by the report is that often, when a firm locates in a particular area, it is not people from that area who get the jobs. It is not simply a case of saying "There is a business, now you have to recruit from that local area." There is the complex business of training and making sure that people are available and have the skills that are required. Sometimes — I have had experience of this on Belfast City Council — where a firm gives advance notice of the numbers of people and the kinds of skills it is going to need, and there is a long lead-in period, it is possible to do that. At other times, it is not. It is unrealistic for the House to impose a burden on the Minister and on the IDB to deliver what may often be an unrealistic wish-list. It is important to address these issues, but it is also important to recognise that microeconomics does not always work so smoothly.
This is an important report that generates a lot of work for the Assembly and the Department. As a result, I trust, we will see an improvement in the performance of the IDB.

Mr Pat Doherty: Cheann Comhairle. As Chairman of the Committee of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, and from the meetings I have had with the Minister, I am entirely aware of the convention which prevents the IDB from responding for eightweeks. To some degree this restricts the Minister in dealing both with the issue and with the responses. However, there have been numerous reports, going back to the 1980s, which outlined virtually the same problems. Even without these reports those people who live in areas of social need (they are scattered throughout the Six Counties —Fermanagh and Tyrone, for example) do not need reports to tell them that they do not have work. They do not need reports to tell them that they have been discriminated against. They do not need reports to tell them that society here — let us hope that it is changing — has been unequal.
Since this Assembly was elected some twoyears ago I have held, sometimes on my own and sometimes with my party colleagues, a number of meetings with IDB officials to try to understand their concerns and to put our views across as forcefully as possible. I am not lightening or lessening my criticism of the IDB, but we need to look at the issues in a holistic way.
The concerns of the IDB generally involved the lack of infrastructure in some areas. There are historical and political reasons why the areas west of the Bann do not have infrastructure. We have a Minister for Regional Development who does not attend Executive meetings yet his fellow Members preach to us about political instability. He will have a role in helping the IDB to develop and expand into areas of social need and into those areas which have not as yet received the type of inward investment that they require. As we look forward to the future, the political instability is coming repeatedly from the same source — the people who will not attend, the people who will criticise and reject and defy any of the collective decisions that are being taken by the Executive. Perhaps we need a Select Committee at Westminster to investigate the denial that emanates continuously from the DUP. Maybe it would be enlightening with regard to its attitudes to us.
Focusing on the key point, I do support the proposal. The IDB has failed many, many areas. It needs to seriously consider the criticisms of the Westminster report and of the various other reports which have appeared on a regular basis. If the IDB focuses on these issues, and if it approaches the situation in a holistic way, then in a year’s time — or two years’ time — when we again discuss the IDB it will be developing and growing and we will be able to work in co-operation with it. If, however, it reverts to the old ways, the old in-house practices, we will again be criticising and focusing — perhaps on the basis of our own reports rather than those from Westminster — on its many, many failures.
Today’s criticisms stand. They are absolutely clear. One would need to be totally incompetent not to recognise that those criticisms are well founded. We need to take on board these criticisms and look to the future. We need to develop a holistic approach, and there is an opportunity now for members of the Committee and for the Minister, with his new responsibilities, to take on board these concerns and to get it right. We need to get it right, particularly for the people on the ground who have suffered from the lack of inward investment.
Debate suspended.
The sitting was suspended at 1.30 pm.
On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —

Oral Answers to Questions

Education

Autistic Children

Mr Barry McElduff: 1. Ba mhaith liom ceist uimhir a haon a chur. What plans does the Minister of Education have to improve educational provision for children who suffer from autism, and will he make a statement?
(AQO339/99)

Mr Martin McGuinness: There are a number of special programmes designed specifically to help autistic children, and all special schools for children with severe learning difficulties operate structured provision to meet the needs of pupils with severe learning difficulties and autism. Education and library boards also provide specialised support to other schools with pupils with autism, and I am committed to achieving greater consistency in the level of such provision.
To assist in this, the Education and Training Inspectorate will shortly be issuing two reports on provision presently being made for autistic children. The first deals with provision for autistic children in special schools for pupils with severe learning difficulties, and the second is a survey of provision for children with Asperger syndrome, that is autistic children with normal or high intelligence. As I indicated in my statement of 5 June to the Assembly on the North/South Ministerial Conference held on 3 February, provision for pupils with autism is one of the priority areas for co-operation on a joint North/South basis through a special education co-ordination group that will examine the possibilities for the exchange of information and experience, and for commissioning joint research studies. I have also agreed with the United States Secretary of Education, MrRichard Riley, that we can have access to American expertise and research in this area. Both initiatives will, I am sure, lead to significant improvements in the quality of provision for children with autism.

Mr Barry McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a Aire. I thank the Minister for his answer. I welcome the North/South dimension to educational study on this matter. What provision is there presently in mainstream schools, and what can be done to improve consistency and provision across all the boards? I am very conscious that this issue affects six out of every 10,000 people.

Mr Martin McGuinness: In mainstream schools, the operation of the special educational needs code of practice ensures that children’s needs can be picked up at different levels of intervention, from school-based to school-supported. Stage 3 intervention brings additional resources and advice from the education and library board, and the process of individual educational plans identifies targets and achievement dates for review. Children can have differing degrees of autism, and provision must have regard for the impact of the condition on the child’s learning and ability to work with peers. It can also change with age. For example, a child with Asperger syndrome will probably experience more emotional problems during adolescence — hence the need for individual support — and may have additional problems with examinations, as the nature of autism can inhibit some children from doing well.
Such children’s circumstances can be taken into account by the examining bodies, which will make special arrangements to meet their needs. Provision in mainstream schools therefore needs to be individualised and underpinned by a visual and structural approach. Support is now available from education and library boards, educational psychology services and their outreach and peripatetic services. Classroom assistance is also provided where necessary.
On the consistency and provision across the education and library boards, I am aware that in special schools for children with moderate learning difficulties, and in the mainstream, provision for autistic children is not as consistent across the boards as we would like it to be. I expect the Inspectorate’s forthcoming reports to highlight this. There is a regional strategy group for special education and that comprises the special education officers and principal educational psychologists from all the education and library boards. It is chaired by a senior education officer and provides the appropriate forum to address this important issue. I will be charging the group with doing so. After the Education and Training Inspectorate have monitored their success in this regard and they will report back to me.

Mr John Dallat: I welcome the Minister’s statement. Does he accept that dyslexia is also a very serious problem in schools — one which has not been adequately resourced?

Mr Martin McGuinness: I agree that dyslexia is a serious problem. I am not sure that I would agree that it has not been resourced. My Department is very conscious of the need to deal in a serious-minded way with any children who have severe or medium learning difficulties. Since I came to the Department of Education I have made it clear to my officials that we must prioritise the issue of children with severe learning difficulties. I recently visited Rathfriland Hill School in Newry, and that brought home to me at first hand the great difficulties faced by the children and the teachers who look after them. We are aware of the seriousness of the issue. It is probably safe to say that approximately 10% of all school-going children suffer, in varying degrees, from dyslexia, and a considerable number also suffer from dyspraxia. That is a huge problem by any standards, and it is one which my officials and I, as Minister, take very seriously.

Mr Speaker: May I urge Members to try to stick with the issue at hand. Dyslexia and autism are somewhat separate issues — in fact, entirely separate issues. I urge the Minister to be as concise as possible and Members to stay as close to the point as possible. Otherwise we will get through very few questions.

Mr William Hay: Following the Minister’s recent visit to America, can he tell the House if the trip was financed in whole or in part by his Department, and the amount of money involved?

Mr Speaker: I have to rule that that question is entirely out of order. Unless a specific part of the visit was connected with autism, I fail to see any link to the question.

Mr William Hay: The Minister raised it in his first answer.

Mr Speaker: Sorry. I did not hear what the Member said.

Mr William Hay: The Minister raised the subject of his trip to America in his first answer, and I am trying to find out if there was a cost to the Department of Education.

Mr Speaker: Supplementary questions must be relevant to the initial question, not necessarily to the ministerial answer. Ministerial answers do not always entirely, and only, respond to the question asked. Members must understand that if they raise points of order it will to take away from the time available for questions. MrWilson, do you want to raise a point of order?

Mr Sammy Wilson: Let him answer the question.

Mr Speaker: Not on that basis. Next question.

School Building Programmes: Private Finance

Mr James Leslie: 2. asked the Minister of Education what is the value of school building programmes so far commissioned using private finance initiatives.
(AQO338/99)

Mr Martin McGuinness: The estimated capital value of the four school pathfinder projects commissioned so far using the private finance initiative is £38 million.

Mr James Leslie: I thank the Minister for his answer. I must say I am disappointed at the small amount involved. Does the Minister intend to make wider use of this form of funding?

Mr Martin McGuinness: I have always been of the view that the private finance initiative approach cannot compensate in any way for the need for a substantial school capital building programme in any given year. I have already raised this issue on several occasions, particularly in a number of interviews with the ‘Belfast Telegraph’. The Department of Education has been evaluating the experience gained during the pathfinder programme. As I announced earlier this year, we will be consulting with school authorities and the Assembly’s Education Committee on a more extensive programme of private finance initiative projects to be launched next year. The present school projects are part of the pathfinder programme. Further private finance initiative developments will be subject to additional consultation, and I expect that increasing numbers of people will be keenly interested in how we develop this particular aspect of our school capital building programme.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: Clearly, we are going to see further developments in the private finance initiative PFI, the public/private partnership PPP — or whatever we want to call it. Has the Minister checked that satisfactory arrangements are in place for the care and maintenance of school buildings under PPP? Also, will those who will be employed in the care and maintenance of the schools, under these arrangements, enjoy the same terms and conditions as those employed in other schools?

Mr Martin McGuinness: Obviously, value for money is vitally important to my Department. Given the condition of the schools estate I have to be seriously concerned as to how Department money is spent in relation to PFI. I have had in-depth discussions with departmental officials in relation to all of these matters, and we are conscious of the need to ensure that, over a twenty-five year period, we are getting value for money.
There are also contractual issues for providers, but we are conscious of that. It brings into focus the second part of the question, and that is how employees in these schemes will be treated, particularly as they will be within a private finance initiative. We are concerned about that. My Department officials and I will keep a close eye to ensure there is equality of treatment, and we will move forward on that basis.

Strabane Grammar School

Mr Derek Hussey: 3. asked the Minister of Education what is the current position in regard to the allocation of grammar school places to Strabane Grammar School, and if he will make a statement.
(AQO 334/99)

Mr Martin McGuinness: The admissions and enrolment numbers of a school are based on the number of pupils that the school can physically accommodate. My Department had discussions with the board of governors of Strabane Grammar School but was unable to approve additional places for admissions this September. I am satisfied that there are sufficient places available at the school.

Mr Derek Hussey: I must express my extreme disappointment at the Minister’s response. He will be aware that students in the Western Board area, in Londonderry and Omagh, can enjoy a 35% allocation of spaces and indeed with the new proposed amalgamated school by CCMS due to be constructed in Strabane, they have been guarenteed a dedicated grammer stream of 35% intake, whereas Strabane Grammar is currently operating on a 25% to 26% intake. This is a severe discrimination against pupils in controlled primary schools in the rural areas. I am aware of one boy—

Mr Speaker: Order. I must prevail upon the Member, who was about to elaborate extensively. This is not an opportunity for a speech. It is a supplementary to a question which has already been put. Please make it concise.

Mr Derek Hussey: I am trying to illustrate the point that somebody, instead of being offered a place in Strabane, has to travel to Londonderry. Does the Minister not agree that this is a discriminatory decision made against the controlled grammar school in Strabane?

Mr Martin McGuinness: No. I do not agree that it is a discriminatory decision. No grade guarantees a place in any grammar school. The position on admissions varies from year to year according on the numbers of pupils transfering, the grades obtained, and stated parental preferences. Boards of governors draw up and apply admission criteria when a school is oversubcribed with applicants.
My Department monitors the availabiltiy of grammar school places on an area basis, and not on an individual school basis. The broad general policy parameter is that places should be available in an area for all pupils obtaining grade A, and 80% of pupils obtaining grade B who are seeking grammar school places. The situation in Strabane is that grammar school places are available in Strabane, Derry and Omagh, and the general policy parameter has been met within the area.
The current approved admissions and enrolment for Strabane Grammar are 54 and 400. The school’s physical capacity is 400, and enrolment as at October 1999 was 397. Therefore the school is almost full. There are plans for future capital development at the school, and the long-term enrolment used in the economic appraisal for the capital scheme is 400, so I fail to see how the allegation of discrimination can hold up.

Mr Oliver Gibson: Does the Minister accept that in the case that he cited there was geographical discrimination? A pupil with a similar grade was refused a place because he lived in Castlederg. The place was allocated to the person living closest to Strabane. Does the Minister accept that allocating grammar school places on a geographical basis requires further serious consideration?

Mr Martin McGuinness: My Department monitors the availability of grammar school places in all areas for both sections of the community against the parameter that there should be places available for all grade A applicants and 80% of grade B applicants, and that parameter has been met this year in both sectors.
With reference to the earlier point made about the maintained situation in Strabane, we must all understand that the proposal for rationalisation in Strabane is under consideration by my Department. There is no question whatsoever of any section of the community being discriminated against. It is important that people understand that this is dealt with on an area basis, not on a school-by-school basis. Therefore, in the year just ended, it is clear, Strabane Grammar, with 397places, for a school that holds about 400, has been fairly treated.

Integrated Schools

Mr David Ford: 4. asked the Minister of Education to review the criteria for the establishment and funding of integrated schools, and if he will make a statement.
(AQO 344/99)

Mr Martin McGuinness: Before the suspension of devolution last February I announced that a review of the viability criteria for new integrated and Irish medium schools was to be conducted. My Department is currently undertaking this review, and I will keep you informed of the developments in this regard.

Mr David Ford: I thank the Minister for his brief and succinct response. Will he take on board a particular concern I have while those criteria are being reviewed? My understanding of the present situation is that when establishing the criteria for integrated schools, only the number of Protestants and Catholics are counted, and those of mixed background and others are ignored. Will the Minister acknowledge that this discrimination is increasing the hurdles to the establishment of new integrated schools, for which there is a huge parental demand, and that this is something that must be addressed in the review that is currently underway?

Mr Martin McGuinness: I am willing to address that issue in the review. In my time as Minister of Education, before suspension, I had a number of discussions with those in the integrated sector about this matter, and so it is something I am conscious of. Mr Ford knows as well as anyone that in relation to the development of these schools, it is absolutely essential to get the balance right. The current legislation clearly refers to reasonable numbers of Catholics and Protestants, but I know that there are people who fall between two stools, and we will take account of that.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Does the Minister accept that he is using integrated primary schools as a cover for discriminatory behaviour in favour of Irish language schools? Given the fact that the Department of Education has closed primary schools in the controlled sector on the grounds that they were not educationally efficient — some of them with just fewer than 100 pupils — does he agree that it is absurd to suggest that the viability criterion for Irish language schools and integrated schools should be 12 pupils? Is it not a case of him plundering his budget once again for his Republican disciples rather than giving good quality for people?

Mr Martin McGuinness: No, I do not agree at all. Mr Wilson would be surprised if I did.
Integrated primary schools must demonstrate the potential to achieve a minimum year one enrolment of 25 pupils and a minimum long-term potential enrolment in the range of 150 to 175 pupils. Integrated secondary schools must demonstrate the potential to achieve a minimum year eight enrolment of 80 pupils with a minimum long-term enrolment of 400.
At the moment, Irish medium schools must demonstrate over a two-year period their ability to meet the minimum requirements for annual intake. The review put in place by my Department is about meeting demand. When I became Minister of Education I made it clear that the issues of choice, accessibility and excellence were very important. The demand for Irish-medium and for integrated education is legitimate. It is fair to say that, over the years, people in both sectors felt very strongly that they were not being given a fair opportunity to develop these forms of education.
My Department has a responsibility, under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, to encourage integrated education and Irish medium education, and we will continue to do that. There is no question of my Department discriminating against any state school. If there are specific allegations that the Member wishes to make on the matter, the sensible thing to do is to sit down and have a discussion about it.

Mr Ken Robinson: Will the Minister assure the House that he will adhere to the principle of equality of treatment when dealing with the establishment, funding or rationalisation of schools, regardless of the educational sector they represent and thereby ensure that the substantial savings achieved by such an approach will be specifically targeted at genuine social need?

Mr Martin McGuinness: I do not disagree with the Member. Equality of treatment is vitally important for all educational sectors and I give you a firm commitment that my Department will adhere to that principle.

Transfer Procedure

Mr Danny Kennedy: 5. asked the Minister of Education what assessment of the Gallagher report he has made in relation to the transfer test.
(AQO 340/99)

Mrs Eileen Bell: 14. asked the Minister of Education when he expects to announce the results of the Gallagher report into transfer procedures.
(AQO 346/99)

Mr Eddie McGrady: 15. asked the Minister of Education when the review of the transfer procedure (11-plus) will be completed, and if he will make a statement.
(AQO317/99)

Mr Martin McGuinness: The purpose of the Gallagher report is to provide objective information on the effects of selection on pupils, schools, teachers, parents and society and to act as a catalyst for a full and open debate on the issues. The report is not yet complete. It will be published in September. It will be followed by a series of dissemination seminars at which the researchers will present their findings. The arrangements for taking forward the subsequent debate and consultation will be determined shortly. However, I wish to ensure that all the relevant interests, including educational bodies, the Executive, the Assembly Education Committee and the Assembly, have full opportunity to contribute to our deliberations on the nature of future post-primary education arrangements.

Mr Danny Kennedy: Can the Minister indicate the financial impact any changes to the current transfer test will have on the education budget, particularly in relation to the school estate?

Mr Martin McGuinness: It is impossible to give that answer at this time. Clearly, my Department is focussing on the fact that we will have, through the research, which is currently with officials and which will be published in September, a huge body of work, to be finalised over the summer period. We will then have what conceivably will be one of the biggest debates in relation to education we have seen in 100 years. Before we even get to the issue of what type of structures are going to be required. We need to deal first with the research and the contents of that research. It is important to stress that this report will not make proposals. I firmly envisage our moving forward to examine the effects of selection, and the 11-plus in particular, on pupils, teachers, the community and society as a whole.

Mr Danny Kennedy: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. With due respect to the Minister, I must say that he has not answered my question. It seems strange that the Department cannot —

Mr Speaker: Order. It is not in order for Members to intervene in a ministerial answer on the subject of whether the Minister has answered the question when he is still on his feet. One should not forget that, if there is time, there will be supplementary questions.

Mr Martin McGuinness: With respect, I believe I have answered Mr Kennedy’s question, and the answer was an honest one. I do not know what the financial implications will be, for the simple reason that we must first deal with how to handle the research findings and move forward to what, in my opinion, will be a large educational debate which, I hope, will take in all sections of the community and everyone involved in the education of our children.
With regard to the research, after it has been put together, I hope that the researchers will go out to the education and library boards to meet the people and explain how they came to their findings. The Department will shortly decide how to move the subsequent debate forward. We shall then have to bear in mind all the debate’s implications for the Department of Education, for the Executive and for society as a whole. At this stage, when we do not know what our decision will be, based on research and consultation, it is difficult to answer the Member’s question, since it presumes we shall initiate wholesale change.
I do not know what the outcome will be. All I know is that it is a serious matter. It must be handled extremely sensitively, and the Department is doing just that. Some people may have criticisms about the slowness of the process, but some of the delay has come about because we decided at a late stage to conduct a comparative examination of other systems elsewhere in the world. It is impossible at this stage to talk about the report’s financial implications until such time as we have the debate, go through the consultation period and I, as Minister of Education, in consultation with everyone else, decide how we move forward. When we reach that stage, and a decision has been taken, we shall look at the financial implications.

Mr Speaker: I appeal to the Minister to be as concise as possible in his replies. There is always a temptation not to do so, and it has sometimes become substantial in other places. In that case, Members need not also complain if their questions or those of their Colleagues are not reached.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I am aware of the work done on the Gallagher Report and that which will be needed following it, but I ask the Minister to remember that one thing that will come out of this will be the stress and trauma experienced by pupils of that age and their parents. I hope that whatever work is done will be done as expeditiously as possible to ensure that future generations do not suffer the same stress and trauma.

Mr Speaker: I am not entirely sure whether the Minister is clear about the question, but I appeal to him to make his response briefly so that we might get in one or two more supplementaries.

Mrs Eileen Bell: If the Minister has any problem I shall be happy to clarify the situation.

Mr Martin McGuinness: I am very conscious of the points made by MrsBell, and I know that this has been the subject already of a huge debate within our society.

Mr Eddie McGrady: I thank the Minister for his reply to the initial question. Will he undertake to expedite the review of the Gallagher Report so that we do not have the paralysis by analysis that we have had for many decades? Will he also assure us that the wide range of consultation he has undertaken will be relatively time limited as this matter has been debated for many years in our community? The fact that there are multi-party questions today indicates the importance.
Does he further agree that the important thing, as has been said, is to remove this trauma from our children and from our families and ensure that it is not substituted by a similar one? The children’s abilities should be foremost, and financial considerations should be hindmost, in the ultimate resolution of this difficult problem for the community.

Mr Martin McGuinness: I fully intend to expedite all this. I know that down the years different Ministers of Education ran away from the hard questions. I am not for running away from this hard question. My Department is facing up to it and the research will be published in September. It will be complete and will not be adjusted by the Department. The researchers will be available to answer questions, and I hope that the consultation process will be finished by next spring. By that time, I fully hope, my Department and I will be in a position to state quite clearly how we intend to move forward. We will be very decisive in all of this.

Mr Speaker: The time for questions to the Minister of Education is up.

Mr Derek Hussey: On a point of order under Standing Order 19(7), Mr Speaker. Members will recall that on 12 June I posed a question to the Minister who is about to take the podium. She did not answer the question. I asked the Deputy Speaker, Sir JohnGorman, to clarify the point, and the Minister refused to answer the question.
Under Standing Orders,
"for the purposes of scrutiny, questions should be answered as clearly and fully as possible."
Standing Orders further state
"supplementary questions shall be answered individually as they arise."
The words are "shall be answered". I ask you, Sir, for a ruling.

Mr Speaker: It is not always entirely easy for the Speaker to rule whether questions are being answered. It is particularly difficult to rule on the question of whether they are being answered as fully as possible. What happens then is that they are no longer answered concisely, and there is no time for supplementary questions to be introduced.
There is a dilemma here. We have already seen a whole raft of questions for oral answers, which we were not able to reach today. I tried to get through as many as possible, but there is a difficult balance to be achieved. We must proceed as best we can, with rulings in individual circumstances and guidance in general.

Mr Derek Hussey: Further to that, MrSpeaker. Will you look at pages 84 and 85 of the Official Report of Monday12June, and then give your ruling?

Mr Speaker: I will happily do that.

Mr Sean Neeson: Is it in order for the Assembly to restrict the amount of time for questions to the Minister to 30minutes, bearing in mind the large number of Members who are disappointed when their questions are not answered, and are not given the opportunity for a supplementary?

Mr Speaker: I am somewhat puzzled by the Member’s question. It is not only in order; it is a requirement. It is in Standing Orders that there shall be questions for an hour and a half — from 2.30 pm to 4.00pm. The alternative is that a Minister will appear for questions once every three months and have an hour and a half. The decision of the Business Committee was that three ministerial Departments would be here for questions each Monday from 2.30 pm to 4.00 pm. Ninety minutes divided by three gives 30minutes, and that is the amount of time available. It is entirely in order for that decision to be taken. It would also be in order for the alternative decision to be taken that one hour 30 minutes be available for Ministerial questions but only once every three months or so. The immediate answer to the question is that it is in order.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Mr Speaker, would you not consider taking points of order after Question Time, as happens in another place?

Mr Speaker: That is an excellent suggestion. I hope that the Assembly will be content to hold with what is a reasonable proposition. Points of order will generally be taken after Question Time. We will now proceed with the questions to the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.

Health, Social Services and Public Safety

Child Protection Legislation

Mrs Eileen Bell: 1. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to confirm when she is planning to introduce legislation equivalent to the Protection of Children Act 1999.
(AQO 328/99)

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Níl comhaontú ann go fóill ar an chlár reachtaíochta. Ach thig liom a dhearbhú go bhfuil rún againn dul i gcomhairle san fhómhar faoi mholtaí gur cheart bunús reachtúil a chur faoi na socruithe reatha trína meastar oiriúnacht iarratasóirí atá ag iarraidh bheith ag obair le páistí.
The legislative programme has yet to be agreed. However, I can confirm that in the autumn I intend to consult on proposals to place the existing arrangements for checking the suitability of those applying to work with children on a statutory basis. We clearly wish to strengthen the protection afforded to children, and our proposals will include a requirement for childcare organisations not to employ anyone on the register of those deemed unsuitable to work with children. The effect will be to provide legislation equivalent to the Protection of Children Act 1999. In the meantime, before proposals are brought forward, I will be happy to receive Members’ views.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I thank the Minister for her answer, which dealt with my point of concern. Obviously the Minister agrees that there are gaps in our current system of vetting. Although it is relatively effective, List99 needs to be reviewed given the number of names included and the legislation it can use to protect children in care. I am glad that that has been looked at. Does the Minister agree that the appointment of a commissioner for children would further children’s rights in Northern Ireland?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: The appointment of a commissioner for children is a very positive idea. It is slightly separate from the question that I was being asked, but in terms of strengthening children’s rights it is a very positive proposal.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Referring specifically to the protection of children and young people, is the Minister aware that between 7February and 15May the Provisional IRA shot or beat 12youths in Northern Ireland? These youths have been treated under the Health Service. The treatment of victims of such beatings and shootings by the IRA costs the health service a vast amount of money. Will the Minister confirm that she has spoken to her comrades in the Provisional IRA and asked them to stop these beatings? Will she condemn the Provisional IRA for carrying them out? If they are unfit to be associated with children and young people, does her association with members of the Provisional IRA make her, as Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, unfit to be running that Department?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I can say very clearly that I do not wish to see beatings — I am opposed to them. It is not the way forward. I have experience, in my constituency, of communities trying to put forward alternatives, trying to develop restorative justice schemes. That is the way forward. Punishment beatings, as they are called, are not the way forward, and I am opposed to them.

Mr Roy Beggs: Does the Minister agree that for any new child protection legislation to be effective, it should clearly define a policing role, so that the expertise of the RUC can be brought to bear in protecting children in our society?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Any proposals being developed are being developed in consultation with other agencies, notably the Northern Ireland Office and the Department of Education. They will bring forward the points that they believe to be necessary in the legislation. Certainly, we need to see what the policing role will be in all of this. We need to ensure that there is provision in the legislation for co-operation between all of the statutory agencies involved in the protection of children. That is the way to go forward.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: Does the Minister plan to have the budget in place to enable her to give legislative effect to an equivalent of the Protection of Children Act? We are being told we do not have enough social workers working with children to deal with the court cases or with cases in our constituencies. Will the budget be in place for this?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Dúirt mé go minic cheana féin go bhfuil mé ag dul a dh’iarraidh tuilleadh airgid don Roinn agus do na seirbhísí sóisialta agus sláinte — agus déanfaidh mé sin. I have said on several occasions that I will be seeking an increased budget for health and social services. This will be necessary for a range of priorities I want to see developed, as do others.

Mr Speaker: We move to the next question, but just in case Members do not recall the note that went round, I should point out that question4 should not have been on the list as it was a second question in the name of one Member. It was removed at an earlier stage.

Hospital Services (Southern Area): Use of Term "Temporary Transfer"

Mrs Joan Carson: 2. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety what policy she will pursue in relation to the Southern Health Board using the term "temporary transfer" when making a decision on hospital services, and if she will make a statement.
(AQO342/99)

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Is eol domh go ndearnadh seirbhísí a aistriú ó Otharlann Dheisceart Thír Eoghain an bhliain seo caite. Chuir mé in iúl go soiléir go bhfuil coinne agam go ndéanfar gach iarracht an bhail cheart a choinneáil ar na seirbhísí láithreacha go dtí go ndéanfar cinneadh ar thodhchaí fhadtréimhseach na n-oispidéal atá laistigh de limistéar an bhoird.
I am aware that a number of hospital services were transferred from South Tyrone Hospital last year. I have made it clear that until decisions are taken on the long-term future of hospitals within the board’s area I expect every effort to be made to maintain existing services. Where this proves impossible, any changes must be the minimum necessary to ensure safety and quality and must be temporary.

Mrs Joan Carson: Does the Minister agree that this is not the case in south Tyrone, where the term "temporary transfer" has been used in order to avoid a judicial review of the decisions made affecting the provision of services? Does the Minister also agree that staffing and resources should be made available to South Tyrone hospital again, so that no more temporary transfers occur?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Until decisions are taken about the long-term future of hospitals within the board’s area, I expect the board to maintain existing services, to make the minimum amount of changes necessary — should it feel any transfer of services is necessary — and to ensure that the transfer of services is temporary. My view is that a temporary transfer is one which is made until final decisions on the long-term future of hospitals in that, or other, board areas can be put in place. I therefore do not agree with the Member’s suggestion as to why transfers are made on a temporary basis. I have made it clear to the Board that any decisions to be made, relating to existing services, need to be very clearly based on robust evidence that changes or transfers are needed. There is a large number of complex issues involved in the suggestions being made at present. It is not simply a question of making available the necessary finance or resources. That is a question, first and foremost, for the Board, but I will expect it to indicate to me, as it has done to date, that it has looked at every possible option.

Community Care Services

Mr David Ford: 3. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to detail how she proposes to increase provision of community care services over the next five years.
(AQO 352/99)

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Caithfear fanacht ar thoradh an athbhreithnithe chuimsithigh ar chaiteachas don bhliain seo sula bhféadfar cinntí a dhéanamh faoi sholáthar seirbhísí cúraim ó 2001-2 go dtí 2003-4. Tá an Roinn ag déanamh machnaimh faoi láthair ar phleananna na mbord sláinte agus seirbhísí sóisialta conas atá siad ag brath a gcuid féin den £53 milliún breise a cuireadh i leataoibh do sheirbhísí sóisialta agus sláinte phoiblí na bliana seo a úsáid. Tá an £11 milliún do sheirbhísí cúraim phoiblí san áireamh.
Decisions on the provision of community care services from 2001-02 to 2003-04 must await the outcome of this year’s comprehensive spending review. The Department is considering the health and social services board plans and how they propose to use their share of the additional £53million allocated to health and personal social services this year, including the £11million earmarked for community care services.
Last winter I commissioned a review of community care in response to the widespread concern about pressures in services, and my Department’s report, ‘Facing the Future’, contains provision for a longer-term review of acute bed provision and community care.

Mr David Ford: The Minister previously answered a written question which I submitted clearly showing that spending on community care has lagged behind that on acute hospital services since 1996. Will she agree — and she has hinted at this but not really answered — that a full range of domiciliary care, day care and respite care services is absolutely essential to the quality of life for many disabled people? Will she give a commitment that, in the programme of government, community care will be a real priority and not lost in a welter of claims for acute hospital services alone?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I am as concerned as the Member that the amount of domiciliary care provided by trusts has not kept pace with assessed needs. I intend to take action to ensure that, in the long term, the provision of care to people in their homes is given as much priority as other types of care, particularly residential care. Overall, there has been underfunding in community care services over a number of years, and I intend to bid for additional resources in this year’s comprehensive spending review to improve the full range of community care services.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: In the context of improving community care services over the next fiveyears, can the Minister tell us the basis for her decision to abandon fundholding without any consultation, thereby launching the health service into another pointless restructuring programme where only the bureaucrats will benefit?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: The decision to end GP fund holding was not taken without consultation. It was clearly flagged up in consultation documents put out by my predecessor. The consultation has already taken place. It did not fall to me to consult again on the matter. Ending fund holding is an essential part of developing modern care services. Health and social services ought to be about care and co-operation and not about market and competition.

Mr Danny Kennedy: Regarding the lack of provision within community care, may I draw the Minister’s attention to the under provision of nurses trained specifically in epilepsy in Northern Ireland and ask what steps she intends to take to address this area of concern.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I want to ensure that funding is available to improve the full range of community services but exactly how this will happen and what decisions will be made will depend on the outcome of the comprehensive spending review. I intend to bid for additional resources for community care and then I will be in a better position to discuss what can be done with those resources in all areas.

Mr Maurice Morrow: With regard to gross underfunding in community care, does the Minister accept that the countless thousands of pounds spent on translation into Irish would be better spent on community care?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: The provision of health and social services is not carried out in only one language. My Department and the agencies, boards and trusts within the health and social services sector have to deliver services to a community diverse in social class, community background and language. We need to tailor our services to that. It is wrong to think of any one attempt to do that as taking away from the overall level of service. My Department not only works in this way, but also allocates part of its budget to ensuring that its documents and consultations make provision for audiocassettes, Braille, Chinese and large-format print. This ensures that we properly deliver the service that is required by our whole community.

Rev William McCrea: Is it not accepted that the policy under which people are sent out of hospital without providing the appropriate community care is totally unacceptable in a civilised community? In the light of that, is it not also accepted that there is an urgent need for additional occupational therapists? Many of the people in the Province who need this attention actually die before they can be visited. What action is going to be taken to correct this situation?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Ó thaobh na chéad cheiste de, tá pleananna ag na boird faoi láthair an fad ama a ghearradh a chaithfeas daoine fanacht sula bhfaigheann siad an pacáiste ceart.
Those are two separate questions. With regard to the first, the spending plans that I have received from boards will achieve real reductions in the time patients have to wait before receiving a community care package. I am also commissioning further work to improve the integration of hospital and community care services.
As regards waiting lists and waiting times for access to occupational therapy services, responsibility for reducing waiting lists lies, first and foremost, with the health and social services boards and trusts. For our part, the Department and the Housing Executive are undertaking a joint review of the housing adaptation service. This will identify the key factors impeding delivery of housing adaptations and discover what needs to be done to improve the service.

Sexual Abuse Victims: Residential Places

Ms Patricia Lewsley: 5. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to confirm whether the Department has plans to allocate resources for the provision of additional residential places for victims of sexual abuse.
(AQO 360/99)

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Tá na ceithre bhord ag tabhairt aire do chúrsaí a shocrú do St Joseph’s, Middletown atá le druidim go gairid. Ar na roghanna sealadacha atá ann nó atá ina bhféidireachtaí tá: Ionad de chuid Barnado a fhoscailt a bhí druidte go dtí seo, áit san earnáil phríobháideach a úsáid i gceantar Bhord an Iarthair agus duine nó daoine le scileanna altrama a fhostú. I dtaca le hairgead breise atá ar fáil, deir na boird go bhfuil forbairt ceantar cónaithe do pháistí ina tosaíocht acu.
I take this question to refer to specialist provision for children. The four boards are giving attention to making alternative arrangements to cope with the scheduled closure of St Joseph’s, Middletown. Interim measures either in place or being explored include the possibility of Barnardo’s reopening a previous facility, the use of a private-sector provider in the Western Board area and the recruitment of foster carers with the necessary skills. Boards have told me that the development of children’s residential care is among their priorities for the extra resources that were made available following the budget.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: What particular consideration is being given by the Department to young people who have been the victims of sexual abuse, rather than integrating them into the general care system, which is currently in severe crisis with the shortage of places? We know how many homes have closed down over the last couple of years. These children need some kind of structure put in place specially for them.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: That question relates mainly to the current mix. The best way of addressing it is to ensure that sufficient places are available to make up the correct mix, so that young people get places that are suitable. There is a working group looking urgently at this at present. The boards are now saying that this is a priority in their spending plans, and I hope to see some move forward in the mix.

Bangor Community Hospital

Mr Alan McFarland: 6. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety whether she plans to visit Bangor Community Hospital.
(AQO 329/99)

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Bhí áthas orm cuairt a thabhairt ar Ospidéal Pobail Bheannchair ar 17 Eanáir na bliana seo. Faoi láthair, níl pleananna ar bith agam cuairt eile a thabhairt air.
I was pleased to visit Bangor Community Hospital on 17January2000, and I have no plans at present to make a further visit.

Mr Alan McFarland: The Bangor Community Hospital and primary care trial in North Down and Ards has been an outstanding success. Will the Minister guarantee continued use of this system and, indeed, its expansion across NorthernIreland, after the completion of the trial in March next year?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: When I visited Bangor Community Hospital I was very impressed with many of the things I saw. However, it is absolutely essential that a rigorous evaluation of this model be conducted to test its overall effectiveness and its applicability to other locations. I will look again at the question when this has been completed.

Mr Gardiner Kane: Is the Minister and her Department in a position to give a definite opening date for the new Causeway Health and Social Services Trust Hospital at Coleraine, County Londonderry? I have reason to believe that the opening date, which was set for autumn 2000, is unlikely to be met.

Mr Speaker: Order. Even with my relatively limited geography, I am aware that this is well outside the North Down Community Trust area. The question, while understandable, is not in order.

Sir John Gorman: The Minister has confirmed my belief that her visit to Bangor Community Hospital was a great success. It is interesting that 70% of the cases taken by acute hospital out-patients departments across the Province are actually of minor importance. Is there not a lesson to be learned here about the need for similar hospitals to take the strain off the more substantial hospitals?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: The question that the Member has raised about the use of accident and emergency departments is very relevant. I certainly want to consider this when looking at the overall question of future hospital provision. The future of hospital services is a very complex issue, and therefore it is important that we get it right. Ensuring that we do so will take some time.

Mr David McClarty: The success of the Bangor Community Hospital trial is directly related to the enthusiasm and professionalism of hospital staff and local GPs. What system does the Minister intend to put in place to ensure that all doctors carrying out general practice are regularly tested on their ability and competence?

Mr Speaker: It may not be a matter of geographical licence, but I will allow the Minister to respond in that regard.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: After I have finished answering questions here, I will be meeting with a delegation from the General Medical Council. I have welcomed their announcement that doctors should go through a revalidation process. That is something that I will be looking to take forward here. There needs to be absolute confidence in the medical system, and a revalidation process should be put in place.

Downe and Downpatrick Maternity Hospitals: Acute Services

Mr Eddie McGrady: 7. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety what further discussions have taken place with the Eastern Health and Social Services Board, the Down Lisburn Trust and other bodies concerning the retention of acute services at the Downe and Downpatrick Maternity Hospitals, and if she will make a statement.
(AQO 318/99)

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Ar 1 Meitheamh bhí cruinniú ag an bhord le dochtúirí clinicí Ospidéal Downe, le saineolaithe An Ospidéil Ríoga agus Ospidéal na Cathrach, le gnáthdhochtúirí áitiúla, le hIontabhas an Dúin Lios na gCearrbhach agus le Coiste Sláinte Pobail an Dúin gur phléigh siad cad é mar sholathrófaí sa todhchaí na seirbhísí géarmhíochaine atá anois á gcur ar fáil in Ospidéal Downe. Mar thoradh ar an chruinniú bunaíodh meitheal a tháinig le chéile den chéad uair ar 23 Meitheamh.
On 1 June the board met with clinicians from the Downe Hospital, specialists from the Royal Victoria and Belfast City Hospitals, local GPs, Down Lisburn Trust and the Down Community Health committee to discuss the future provision of acute services currently provided in the Downe Hospital. A working group established as a result of that meeting met for the first time on 23 June. I am aware of how important hospital services are to local communities, and I want to ensure that decisions about the future of such services are based on the fullest possible information. In that context I intend to consider any recommendations made by the working group and to meet local interests.

Mr Eddie McGrady: I thank the Minister for her full reply, and I acknowledge what she said in her letter of 21 June, which is part of the answer that she has just given. I would like to respond on two issues. First, can she confirm that there is a need for a new hospital building in the Downe to replace the 250 year old building, and is she, as Minister, committed to the continuation of the process which is now nearing tender stage?
Secondly, on the clinical grouping referred to, which has just met, could she confirm that its terms of reference are not restricted to the withdrawal of acute services and their substitution by outreach as envisaged by a previous Administration? Will its considerations embrace the totality of acute services and how they could properly be provided in the Down and Mourne area through the new-build Downe hospital?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: As I have said, the working group has met to discuss the future provision of acute services currently provided in Downe Hospital. Those, therefore, are the terms of reference. They do not make any specific reference at this stage to where those services will be provided. However, I have not yet decided on the way forward on this matter. The provision of hospital services is a complex matter, and I want to look at all available options. Therefore, I want to hear the views of local people and of those who have an interest in this issue, as well as looking at the outcome and any recommendations coming from the working group.

Mr Mick Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.
Will the Minister stop the Eastern Health and Social Services Board’s consultation that has been based on the decision of the British Prime Minister to remove acute services?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: The board’s consultation seeks views on a range of services in hospitals throughout its area, including the Downe, and I am very aware of how important hospital services are to local communities. As I have said, I want to ensure that decisions are based on the fullest possible information. In that context, I am quite content for the consultation to continue, and I will be interested in the views put to the board. I also want to meet local interested parties to hear their views for myself.

Mr Seamus Close: In light of the Minister’s last two responses, can she give an assurance that the maternity unit at the Lagan Valley Hospital in Lisburn is secure?

Mr Speaker: I leave it to the Minister to judge whether that is inside or outside that particular catchment area.

Mr Seamus Close: Down Lisburn.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I think that the response to that is the same as the other responses. I am very aware of local concerns about the future of smaller hospitals and the services available. The question of the provision of services is of the greatest priority to me. It is one that I do not wish to rush because it is a complex matter. I want to ensure that people have the opportunity to make their views known, and I want any decision that I take to be based on the fullest possible information.

Craigavon and South Tyrone Hospitals: Acute Services

Mr Tommy Gallagher: 8. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety what arrangements have been made at Craigavon Hospital to deal with extra demands resulting from a discontinuation of acute services at South Tyrone Hospital in Dungannon from 31 July 2000.
(AQO 357/99)

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Níl socrú déanta go fóill i dtaca le géarsheirbhísí leighis d’othair-istigh in Otharlann Dheisceart Thír Eoghain. Mhol Iontabhas Ard Mhacha agus Dún Geanainn nár chóir géarsheirbhísí leighis d’othair-istigh, géarsheirbhísí seanliach d’othair-istigh, máinliacht toghaí d’othair-istigh agus seirbhísí CSS d’othair-istigh bheith ar fáil san otharlann i ndiaidh 31 Iúil 2000.
Decisions have not been taken yet about the future of acute medical in-patient services at the South Tyrone hospital. The Armagh and Dungannon Trust has concluded that after 31July2000 the South Tyrone hospital will be unable to provide acute in-patient general medicine, an acute in-patient geriatric service, in-patient elective surgery and in-patient ear, nose and throat services. This is initially a matter for the Southern Health and Social Services Board to consider. I have made it clear that until decisions are taken on the long-term future of hospitals within the board’s area, I expect every effort to be made to maintain existing services and, where this proves impossible, any changes must be temporary and the minimum necessary to ensure safety and quality. The board will consider the trust’s views at its meeting tomorrow, and I expect to be advised of its decision as soon as possible to allow me to consider the way forward.

Mr Speaker: I regret that time is now up and that it is not possible to proceed with the supplementaries. We must move on to questions to the Minister of Finance and Personnel.

Finance and Personnel

‘Peace II’ Funds: Rural and Agriculture Sectors

Mr Donovan McClelland: 1. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel what steps will be taken to secure funding allocations for the rural and agricultural sectors in the ‘PeaceII’ funds.
(AQO 358/99)

Mr Mark Durkan: Proposals for PeaceII, which have been lodged for negotiation with the European Commission, contain provisions for natural-resource rural tourism, reskilling, retraining and capacity building for disadvantaged farm families and cross-border co-operation which will benefit the rural and agricultural sectors.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I thank the Minister for his answer. Can the Minister give us an undertaking that he has had and will continue to have the widest possible discussions with groups, such as the Rural Development Council, the Ulster Farmers Union and the Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers’ Association (NIAPA), which represent agricultural and rural interests?

Mr Mark Durkan: Rural interest groups have been consulted throughout the drawing up of the proposals. They are represented on the interim community support framework monitoring committee and on a working group which has been established and will be meeting this week to decide how best to take forward the work of the monitoring committee over the next key stage of the development of the operational programmes. I also make the point that there are matters and measures involved in PeaceII which will involve other Ministers. I know for example that the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development expects that a rural intermediary funding body will continue to form part of the delivery mechanism for the distribution of PeaceII funds, and obviously that will work closely with the full range of rural and agricultural interests.

Mr George Savage: Bearing in mind that the European Investment Bank devotes two thirds of its lending to the less advantaged regions of the European Union, and that it has also recently broadened its remit, can the Minister tell the House what discussions, if any, he has had with the European Investment Bank to secure loan funding for Northern Ireland’s rural economy?

Mr Mark Durkan: The question goes somewhat outside the peace programme. I have had no discussions yet with the European Investment Bank on any sectoral interest.

Mr Derek Hussey: The supplementary question was a little unclear. Those of us living in the rural community find the Rural Community Network and the Northern Ireland Rural Development Council programmes to be extremely beneficial. Can the Minister comment more fully on speculation that under the current proposals to distribute PeaceII funds neither the Rural Community Network nor the Northern Ireland Rural Development Council will be allocated any funding? There is also a suggestion that there is no specific provision for the community based actions measure. Will the Minister comment?

Mr Mark Durkan: Not unlike the Deputy First Minister this morning, I would point out that we have reached the community support framework stage of PeaceII, which sets out the broad strategy and rationale on the funds. The next key stage examines the development of the operational programmes. Rural interests are fully represented on the interim monitoring committee for the community support framework and will also be represented on the monitoring committee that would be established for PeaceII. In relation to delivery mechanisms, we are trying to make sure that form follows function. I can certainly reassure the Member, and indeed any others who are concerned, that the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development is clearly determined and fully expects that a specific rural intermediary funding body will continue to form part of the delivery mechanism for the administration of PeaceII funds, a point which people were particularly concerned about. The Executive is making it clear that in relation to any measures that will fall to any of the Departments to administer, those Departments are going to have to show that they attach a premium to social inclusion, to cross-border activity and to applying measures to and through local delivery mechanisms also. That is something that will be monitored by the Executive as well as by all the other monitoring arrangements that exist.

Housing Executive Budget

Mr Eddie McGrady: 2. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel what discussions he has held with his ministerial counterpart in the Department of Social Development concerning the reduction in the budget of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, and if he will make a statement.
(AQO 319/99)

Mr Fred Cobain: 7. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel whether the Northern Ireland Housing Executive will retain all receipts from the sale of Housing Executive houses as additional funding to address the urgent housing need, and if he will make a statement.
(AQO 327/99)

Mr Mark Durkan: Prior to the suspension of devolution, I had one meeting with the Minister for Social Development, NigelDodds, to discuss the budgets for his Department, and that included the budget for the Housing Executive. Representations in relation to budgetary matters take many forms, and as well as expressing his concerns about the housing budget at our meeting, the Minister has used other means as well.
Turning to MrCobain’s question, I stress that the Housing Executive will be able to retain almost £60million of house sale receipts in the current year to offset its costs. As with other receipts, any extra will be at the disposal of the Executive Committee and this Assembly to be used to address emerging pressures which could, of course, include housing. This general principle on receipts enables planning for expenditure to be on a known basis, while maintaining flexibility to respond to changing priorities.

Mr Eddie McGrady: Is the Minister aware that the decision by his predecessor in terms of the budget allocation to the Housing Executive has resulted in the postponement and sometime abandonment of much needed rural redevelopment and rehabilitation programmes? Will he take this matter up with his ministerial Colleague for Social Development? There seems to be some confusion in that a letter that I have states that work on the refurbishment and replacement of rural cottages is largely completed, yet the same letter states
"nevertheless there remains a considerable amount of improvement work to be carried out in the rural community."
So there seems to be some dichotomy in that letter alone.
Will the Minister of Finance and Personnel address this issue either unilaterally or in conjunction with others? Rural community rehabilitation and redevelopment has lagged behind urban renewal and rehabilitation, and it needs that re-injection of finances to enable the current planned programmes to be implemented.

Mr Mark Durkan: I certainly do not believe that I can take unilateral action in the form that was being suggested by MrMcGrady. If there are problems in ensuring that funding in respect of various programmes is going to areas for which it was intended, that should be taken up through the relevant agencies and, obviously, by the relevant departmental Minister. DFP’s responsibility lies in the overall allocation to the various programmes of the Departments. The administration of those allocations then falls to those Departments and Ministers, subject to delegated authority from the Department of Finance and Personnel and subject to approval and various other standard requirements. A lot of cases have been made and reflected here in the course of recent debates on the supply resolution and some of the questions on the Estimates. The many and diverse pressures on the various aspects of the housing programme have certainly been well identified for my ears and, I am sure, for the Minister’s ears as well.

Mr Fred Cobain: Minister, we have been assured by you and other ministerial Colleagues that the TSN programmes are at the heart of all departmental spending programmes. Will the Minister explain how cutting the housing budget and ensuring that tens of thousands of the poorest people in the community continue to live in slums for the foreseeable future fits in with the TSN programmes?

Mr Mark Durkan: I did not catch all of the question, but I take it that MrCobain was once again challenging what he regards to be any underfunding of the Housing Executive’s programme. I have already made it clear that this year the Housing Executive will have gross resources of £528million. Let us remember that the work of the Housing Executive is also now supplemented by work in the new-build area of the Housing Associations, and that also brings in private-sector money. Overall, £600million is being spent on the housing programme this year.
We want to ensure that, as with all programmes, real need is met in the best, most efficient way possible. The Housing Executive will have to continue to work within its resources and the Housing Associations within theirs, including the additional money levered from the private sector, to address and reduce the sort of problems that MrCobain has identified.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: Does the Minister agree that there is something unjust and unfair about the fact that the Housing Executive continues to have to pay loan charges on properties that have already been sold off under the house sales programme, and will he confirm that some of the money accrued from such sales is not brought back into the housing budget? If he agrees, can he ascertain the extent to which this happens?

Mr Mark Durkan: Returning to the point that I made previously about the treatment of receipts, there is a suggestion, which has been a recurring theme in this House, that the Housing Executive should be allowed to retain all receipts generated by house sales. As with receipts in any Department or programme, any extra revenue has to be placed at the disposal of the Executive Committee and the Assembly. It is clear that not all programmes generate receipts and, therefore, not all programmes or services can benefit from windfall receipts. There are some extra receipts in housing this year, and where these extra receipts emerge, they are pooled for reallocation across various programmes in which there are pressures. Many people have identified that one of the programmes with pressures, and in which they want to see additional resources, is housing. Ministerial Colleagues and I will, at a future point, try to bear that in mind when such moneys are available for reallocation.

Rates

Mr Mervyn Carrick: 3. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to provide an estimate of the loss of rates revenue for each of the 26 council areas as a result of inadequate monitoring arrangements, and if he will make a statement.
(AQO 322/99)

Mr P J Bradley: 6. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel if he will take appropriate action to reinstate a rate collection office in Newry.
(AQO 326/99)

Mr Mark Durkan: The Rate Collection Agency is responsible for the collection of rates as assessed in each of the 26 council areas. The agency is independently audited each year to test the adequacy of its policies and the system of internal control in support of its business objectives and on its collection performance against ministerial targets. The agency pursues all outstanding rates, which may include taking recovery action through the courts.
There are no plans to reinstate a Rate Collection Agency office in Newry.

Mr Mervyn Carrick: Is the Minister aware that at a meeting of chief building control officers on 12April, a representative of a leading and reputable firm of consultants brought forward a report that said that up to £26million per annum could be lost through inadequate co-ordination and inaccurate information among the various Government agencies — that is Building Control, the Valuation and Lands Agency and the Rate Collection Agency. What is the Minister prepared to do to further investigate this allegation of serious public revenue haemorrhage?

Mr Mark Durkan: I thank the Member. First, I am not aware of the basis for the figure of £26 million quoted. I certainly do not believe, whatever figure people may have been referring to specifically in relation to the question of loss of rate revenue, that it was £26 million. None of the information available to me concerning the Rate Collection Agency’s performance, in recovery terms, suggests that there is any such haemorrhage or deficit in the recovery of the rates. I assume that someone has misinterpreted other references made at that particular meeting, which was discussing a project being brought forward under the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The aim is to develop a joined-up approach to land and property information services delivered by Government to citizens and businesses of Northern Ireland. As to where the figure of £26million came from, certainly in terms of the Rate Collection Agency’s performance and responsibility I do not know the basis for that figure.

Mr P J Bradley: I am disappointed at the Minister’s response to the return of the Rate Collection Agency office to Newry and it is probably a request that will not go away. Does the Minister agree that our rural towns and villages would benefit from decentralisation? If he does agree, would he advise this Assembly of what measures he may introduce to relocate agencies and services under his control?

Mr Mark Durkan: The supplementary question is turning a further corner. I appreciate MrBradley’s disappointment at my answer in relation to the Newry office of the Rate Collection Agency. However, in terms not unrelated to my answer to Mr Carrick, the fact is that the agency’s performance in rate recovery has continued to improve, even with the closure of some of the local offices. More and more people are using direct debit and local post office services for the payment of rates.
In relation to the relocation of other agencies in my Department, I would look to the overall question of the location and distribution of such offices in the context of the wider review of civil service locational accommodation policy, and that is the subject of a later question.

Mr Danny Kennedy: I endorse Mr Bradley’s great disappointment in respect of the Minister’s answer regarding Newry. Could I press the Minister to give active and urgent consideration to reinstate agencies under his control in the constituency of Newry and Armagh?

Mr Mark Durkan: I thank the Member. I am sorry that he is disappointed about my answer in relation to the Newry office, but I should make it clear, as Minister with overall responsibility for the Rate Collection Agency, that the closure of the offices that took place over recent years has not actually been at the expense of the overall performance of the agency. It certainly has not even been at the expense of the performance of the agency in respect of those localities. The payment rate and recovery rate has remained high and has even improved. Let us remember that people are now availing of different payment systems than were previously available.
Again, in relation to the question of other agencies within my Department I would like to look at that question in the context of the wider review in terms of civil service accommodation and relocation policy.

Mr Speaker: Before I call on what will probably be the last supplementary question, I need to make a ruling in regard to supplementary questions that are effectively covering the same ground as substantive questions already put down. This would fall foul of the rule of anticipation. If a Member was to put down such a question as an oral question, it would simply not be accepted by the Business Office, because it would be in anticipation of a question that is already down. I have to make a ruling that Members are not at liberty to ask a supplementary question if it anticipates or foreshadows a substantive question which is down on the list for oral answer.

Mr Conor Murphy: Would you rule that my question was also on decentralisation, and if that question is further down the list then I will defer to your judgement on it?

Mr Speaker: I have already addressed the question of a supplementary anticipating or reiterating the field, and frequently the wording, of a substantive question. In future, such a supplementary will not be in order. I trust that clarifies the matter.

Mr Conor Murphy: I might be able to squeeze my question in. It is specifically to do with the Newry office and decentralisation in the southern region, not the general question of decentralisation. Is the Minister aware that the tendency in the southern region has been to centralise services in the Craigavon area, which is less accessible than Belfast for people from Newry, South Armagh and South Down? I hope this is something that will be borne in mind when we come to address the issue.

Mr Speaker: I am sure the Minister will take your remark into account. It is not in fact a question. I can understand when Members try to push out the boundaries of rulings to see exactly how far they extend, but I remind them that, when there is a substantive question, they should bring their supplementary in under that. It should be a question, not an observation, however enlightening it may be.

Mr P J Bradley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. If the Minister had replied that the office was returning to Newry —

Mr Speaker: Order. I am afraid it is no excuse if the Minister’s answer was not desired or appreciated by the Member.

Northern Ireland Block Grant

Mr Edwin Poots: 4. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel whether the block grant from the United Kingdom Government has decreased in real terms over the past 10 years.
(AQO 336/99)

Mr Mark Durkan: Over the period from 1989-90 to 1998-99, expenditure on the NorthernIreland block, excluding social security payments, has increased by 2·2% in real terms. This is equivalent to real annual average growth of 0·2%. This figure also excludes expenditure on law, order and protective services.

Mr Edwin Poots: Will the Minister confirm that the so-called subvention we receive from the United Kingdom budget has been reduced over the past 10years, with economic growth taking place year on year in Northern Ireland leading to a reduction in money paid out in unemployment benefits and social security?

Mr Mark Durkan: With regard to the last point, if the figure I gave earlier had included social security payments, the increase would have been not 2·2% in real terms but 15·8%. There have clearly been continuing increases in social security expenditure. The deeper question of the subvention has also been raised, among others, by members of the Finance and Personnel Committee, in particular MrLeslie.
Not all the information is available to us on all the revenue generated and all the taxable income that flows from NorthernIreland into the United Kingdom Exchequer. However, many observers would have some agreement with the point the Member makes. Clearly, based on the fact that there has been economic growth and greater buoyancy in the economy here, one might assume this would also translate into higher tax yields. However, there are no definitive figures on that point at this stage, much to the dissatisfaction of members of the Finance and Personnel Committee.

Dr Esmond Birnie: Does the Minister agree, since there is always likely to be some stringency with respect to the total size and growth of the Northern Ireland block, that it is imperative for the Executive, as soon as possible, to start a review of administration in order to cut the costs of running the Government, taking in quangos, boards, agencies, and perhaps even the size, competencies and numbers of district councils, in order that money can be directed to highly productive and, indeed, social welfare ends as opposed to simply running Government?

Mr Mark Durkan: We want to make public expenditure more efficient. We want to make sure that we are running effective public services. We want to make sure that as far as possible the money to fund public services goes into services for the people rather than into structures and systems. We want to make sure that as much public money as possible goes into real services rather than be absorbed by the Government.
These are not straightforward issues, and we must make sure that the systems and structures are adequate to support services and reflect the needs of services properly. Wiping away various structures and systems may not protect or promote the quality of those services. We have to consider this in a hard-headed and thoughtful way.

Decentralisation of Government Departments

Mr David Ford: 5. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to detail what progress has been made towards the decentralisation of Government Departments outside the Greater Belfast area, and if he will make a statement.
(AQO 351/99)

Mr Mark Durkan: I can confirm that it remains my intention to develop a civil service office accommodation strategy, which will incorporate a review of the current policy on job location. Following the restoration of devolved Government, I asked officials to bring forward proposals on how the review might be carried out. I will consult ministerial colleagues and the Finance and Personnel Committee on the way forward. Pending the outcome of the review, opportunities to disperse civil service functions will continue to be examined on a case-by-case basis, as particular needs and issues arise.
I am pleased to announce, that as a result of a recent decision to centralise staff superannuation functions currently carried out by the Department in the Belfast and north Down area, up to 20 jobs will be relocated to Derry over the next year or so.

Mr David Ford: I am sure the Minister got great pleasure from the last words of his announcement. It is regrettable that since we discussed this during our previous period of devolution, the Department does not seem to have done any work. The Minister has had to ask his civil servants once again to proceed with it.
May I remind him of the recent report about the dangers of congestion on the eastern side of this island, with the potential to have half the population living in the Belfast/Dublin corridor. In the Republic there seems to be a significant decentralisation of Government Departments. Will he indicate when he may produce a comprehensive report for Northern Ireland, preferably in line with his remarks about anticipation earlier, and without giving other Members an opportunity to detail the merits of their constituencies?

Mr Mark Durkan: I thank the Member for not encouraging people to offer sites and premises. That is an issue we are bringing forward in the Department. I accept MrFord’s interest in this particular matter, but it would be wrong to mischaracterise the Department as being reluctant in this regard. The Department of Finance and Personnel, while not a high profile Department, is very busy. We have been bringing forward a range of measures to both the House, and the Executive Committee. The policy on accommodation and relocation is one example. It is a policy currently being developed, and when the paper is ready, I will consult with ministerial colleagues and the Finance and Personnel Committee. We will try to do that as soon as possible.
In case anyone misinterprets my remarks about the 20 jobs that will be relocated to Derry, I would point out that these jobs will be incorporated into the Civil Service Pensions Branch, which is already in Waterside House in the city.

Mr James Leslie: By extension of his answer to question No 4, will the Minister agree that the best way of ensuring job creation outside the Belfast area, and, indeed, outside the eastern corridor, is by a series of measures under the Programme of Government to stimulate the overall rate of economic growth and not by fiddling about with the relocation of Government Departments almost certainly with no saving of money?

Mr Mark Durkan: The broader economic strategy is obviously one that I, as a Minister, have shared responsibility for with all my ministerial colleagues. Civil service accommodation and location is a matter for which I am specifically accountable as a Minister. It is entirely legitimate for Members to raise questions in that regard. A redistribution of civil service jobs can ease a variety of problems. It can contribute to easing the congestion that has already been identified, and clearly that is something that has been pursued with some success in other jurisdictions, often to great applause from the people who have more room to breathe when civil servants move elsewhere.
Decentralisation could contribute to the quality of life and in a variety of localities across Northern Ireland. It is consistent, for instance, with such policy papers as ‘Shaping our Future’ et cetera. Obviously, we want to take account of targeting social need and equality considerations there, but clearly we cannot pursue such a policy without a proper and responsible regard to cost. We must be realistic about that.

Mr Joe Byrne: I welcome the Minister’s comments on decentralisation. Given that the Department for Regional Development is trying to put together a regional development strategy, does the Minister accept that decentralisation, as a core theme, could greatly contribute to sustainable, balanced regional development right across Northern Ireland?

Mr Mark Durkan: A balanced distribution of public sector employment, and in particular a balanced distribution of civil service jobs, across the Northern Ireland region could make a serious contribution to the quality of services provided throughout Northern Ireland — and not just to the places where those jobs would be located. We are in an age where the case that was made in the past for centralising such functions no longer exists. The Member is right to identify a variety of potential benefits. These are issues that I will be bringing forward, not just with an eye to the Department of Finance and Personnel’s considerations, but also with a proper eye to the policies and commitments of other Departments and, indeed, of the Administration in its entirety.

Mr Speaker: I regret that we have come to the end of time for questions. I have transgressed beyond 4o’clock because a substantial period, about seven minutes, was taken up with points of order. The Minister, however, does not escape at the end of Question Time, because he is now going to make a statement.

European Union Programmes: North/South Ministerial Council Sectoral Meeting

Mr Mark Durkan: The council underlined the important contribution to peace, reconciliation, regional development and cross-border co-operation made by European Union programmes and looked forward to the significant new role of the special EU programmes body (SEUPB) in the negotiation, management, monitoring and delivery of the programmes. The council expressed the firm desire that the new political context and the role of the SEUPB should ensure a higher level of expenditure on co-operative actions co-funded by the European Union, especially Peace II. The council agreed that the establishment of the SEUPB served as a tangible, further reflection of the support and solidarity that has been shown by the European Union in seeking to advance reconciliation and peace and of its commitment to the new dispensation heralded by the Good Friday Agreement.
The council received a verbal progress report from MrPhilipAngus, interim chief executive of the SEUPB, on the work of the body. The body currently has 19 staff drawn from central government Departments, North and South. It has its headquarters in Belfast, an office in Monaghan, and a further office will be opened in Omagh.
The council endorsed proposals for taking forward the responsibilities of the body, which will be implemented under the direction of the interim chief executive. The council also endorsed the initial staffing structure for the body and approved the formal procedure for the appointment of a permanent chief executive to the body.
The council noted a position paper on the Peace II programme and agreed that officials of the SEUPB would contribute, in accordance with its mandate, as appropriate, to the forthcoming negotiations on PeaceII with the European Commission. The council noted a common text on North/South co-operation, which will be included in the respective community support frameworks for Northern Ireland and Ireland. The council approved a guidance framework for the SEUPB, which had been prepared by the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Department of Finance. It also noted that further guidance on the role and functions of SEUPB and the Finance Departments was being prepared by the Finance Departments in consultation with the body.
The council agreed it would meet on a quarterly basis in this sectoral format and that the next meeting would take place in October in Northern Ireland.
The council agreed the text of a joint communiqué which was issued following the meeting. A copy of the communiqué has been placed in the Assembly Library.

Dr Esmond Birnie: The Minister refers to the PeaceII programme. To what extent are the plans relating to PeaceII soundly based on ex post evaluations of what happened previously under the PeaceI programme?

Mr Mark Durkan: We are trying to ensure that we take forward all the positive lessons of PeaceI and that we drop any negative aspects. Obviously more evaluations are available in relation to some aspects than to others. Plans were being developed whilst there were still further evaluations to come in. The broad framework we have been taking forward at this stage has concentrated on the community support framework, which is a broad-band strategy and rational. We believe this takes forward positive aspects of PeaceI whilst also trying to identify, and address, new opportunities afforded by the improved context we now have, especially the new political arrangements.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: Does the Minister agree that in the light of the need for open, public and transparent accountability, and given the problem of additionality in the past, we need to be particularly vigilant as to how we administer the funding from Europe. Would he consider the establishment of an all-party sub-committee to oversee the administration of these funds, especially PeaceII?

Mr Mark Durkan: Mr ONeill rightly identifies the importance of transparency and due scrutiny with these funds, as with any funds managed in the public interest. Regarding monitoring, we already have the Interim Community Support Framework Monitoring Committee, and when we have the community support framework agreed, that will no longer be in shadow format. There will also be monitoring committees for the operational programmes under the peace programme and the transition programme. Those monitoring committees will involve a range of interests, including the social partners, local government, relative departments, etcetera.
The interim monitoring committee for the community support framework includes representatives of all parties in the Assembly. Mr ONeill may have touched on a useful idea when he said that the Assembly might want to consider setting up a monitoring Committee of its own, not least in relation to Peace II. This would enable the Assembly to underline the importance of the additionality requirements of the peace programme, as distinct from the other European moneys. It is a proposal that the Department of Finance and Personnel would not be averse to. We have touched on it in some exchanges with the Finance and Personnel Committee and I further discussed the possibilities with the chairman of that Committee. Clearly, it would be very important that anything set up by the Assembly did not in any way conflict with the role and responsibility of the Statutory Committee.

Mr Sean Neeson: The Minister referred to the Peace II programme, but I would like to raise the matter of INTERREG III. At present there is a consultation process being carried out. Would he accept that one of the key issues for INTERREG III would be the development of integrated infrastructure in roads, other transport and energy to support economic growth? Also, bearing in mind where the Minister comes from, will he give his personal support to seeking EU funding for an extension of the natural gas pipeline to the north-west?

Mr Mark Durkan: I thank the Member for his question. With regard to INTERREG III, we are required to submit forward programme proposals to Brussels by November 2000. Funding under that programme will not be available until next year. SEUPB has issued a consultation paper to some 800 organisations and individuals, and a consultation conference was held in Monaghan last week. Structures will be put in place to continue the consultation process as it develops and the particular characteristics, which Mr Neeson suggests should be evident in INTERREG III, would be welcome as an appropriate graduation in the nature and quality of the co-operation that the INTERREG programme should be developing and engendering. We are aware of particular interests from the various cross-border networks including the council groups.
With regard to EU monies for the natural gas pipeline, I would make the point that the transition programme, as it is currently drafted, would give a basis for using such EU funds to support energy projects both in the gas and electricity fields. For this to happen, the Executive Committee would have to decide that public expenditure would cover these projects. In relation to the natural gas project as indicated by the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, we are awaiting the outcome of the proposals from the private sector before decisions can be made.

Mr Edwin Poots: Will the Minister indicate if discussions took place about the mechanism to be employed in the analysis of need, and will he confirm that the Robson index will not be used in distributing the Peace II money as it is now nine years old, completely outdated and has no relevance to the current situation?
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Sir John Gorman] in the Chair)

Mr Mark Durkan: The discussions in relation to the future use or non-use of the Robson index were not a direct part of the North/South Ministerial Council meeting. The Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency, which is part of my Department, is trying to address the shortcomings of the Robson index and to see what alternatives there might be. Consultations are starting very shortly to see if we can agree a new basis for identifying and, in turn, targeting social need. That work is under way. I hope that the development of that work will inform decisions and effective performance in all the EU programmes and, indeed, in all public expenditure programmes.

Mr James Leslie: I want to ask the Minister some questions about the identity of some of the money referred to in this programme. There is a tendency, particularly with EU money, for a lot of double counting to go on. We must be careful that we are identifying different pools of money. Equally, we need to be clear when we are talking about the same pool of money. Where EU money is concerned, the technique is rather like writing a history essay when you do not have much information: say what you are going to say, then say it, then say what you have said.
If I may, I will link the Minister’s statement to the one made this morning by the Deputy First Minister, which dealt with the overarching programme for EU money. If I remember correctly, he said that the Peace II money would be worth an average of £75million per annum for the next six years. I note that the cross-border sub-programme will have a minimum budget of 75million euro, which I think is slightly less than £50million at current exchange rates. Will the Minister confirm whether that money is part of the peace money mentioned this morning, or whether it is a further amount?
If it is part of the same money, does that mean that instead of being spent exclusively in Northern Ireland, which is the impression one would have gained this morning, in fact it may be the case that some of the money will be spent on the other side of the border? It seems to me that our money should be spent on our side of the border and their money should be spent on their side. I would be grateful for the Minister’s clarification on that point.
I could not help noticing that the meeting was chaired by Mr McCreevy. I believe his nickname is "champagne Charlie". I wondered if he brought some champagne with him, before they changed around the exchange rates and issued the communiqué. Will the Minister also confirm that the chairmanship goes with the host, that is, that it will rotate according to the country in which the meeting is being held?

Mr Mark Durkan: On the last point, chairing is the responsibility of the host Administration. That was why Mr McCreevy chaired the meeting on 16 June.
To clarify the question of the peace money and the cross-border priority, I refer to a point I made earlier. As well as having the distinct cross-border priority, which is there to ensure that at least that amount of money is made available for cross-border co-operation, and indeed wider east-west co-operation, we also set out to ensure that all Departments, when considering those aspects of the peace programme that fall to them, put a due premium on the need to ensure social inclusion and to use and support local delivery mechanisms and on cross-border co-operation itself. That is a cross-cutting theme as well as a single identifiable priority. In a sense, it is both. To use the jargon, it involves both a vertical and a horizontal approach. The cross-border money that I am talking about is clearly within the peace programme. All of the Northern Ireland moneys in the peace programme will be spent in Northern Ireland.

Mr Joe Byrne: I welcome the Minister’s statement. In relation to the role of the SEUP what is the timetable for putting together operational programmes, and how does the Minister envisage the cross-border dimension working in reality on the ground? I noted his earlier reference to the role of cross-border local authorities. Many such authorities are interested in helping to facilitate the outworkings of this new body.

Mr Mark Durkan: The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister visited Brussels last week and, from the point of view of our Administration, the development of the community support framework is now complete. The Commission will publish the framework next month. The next phase will be the development of the operational programmes, and these have to be in place by October. SEUPB — the body with the role of managing and monitoring Peace II — clearly has a key role in that regard. We will be developing the operational programme framework in conjunction with the interim monitoring committee. There will also be a monitoring committee for each of the operational programmes — the peace programme and the transition programme.
Once the operational programmes are in place we have to produce programme complements which will bring forward the measures in specific and detailed terms. The deadline for this is no later than three months after the operational programmes have been agreed. We do not want to be in a situation where we run out of time at the end, so we have added on time at the beginning. We have been working on the programme complements in parallel with the work on the operational programmes. We want as much input as possible from all relevant interests and from all localities, be they at the border or elsewhere. We want to ensure that everybody, including local government, has sufficient input into the process. To implement all the various suggestions and ambitions would cost a lot more than the total sum available. Therefore we need to use the consultation exercises, not only to weed out particular ideas or projects, but also to see how a more positive synergy and complementarity can be developed between the many different ideas and proposals.

Mr Derek Hussey: There may appear to be a bit of telepathy between Mr Byrne and myself — I am raising the same issue. In point nine of the joint communiqué the council noted that the sub-programme would provide opportunities for the funding of cross-border co-operative action across the full range of economic areas. Point four states that the new programmes have the capacity to have a real impact on the lives of people in Northern Ireland and the border area. What role does the Minister see for the three cross-border bodies — the north-west body, the Irish Central Border Area Network and the eastern border counties body? I am a member of the north-west regional cross-border committee, and I am sure the Minister will agree that these bodies, via their secretariats, have built up a tremendous expertise. A vast local knowledge exists within each body which stems from the local council input. I want further clarification that these bodies will be respected in their input and that when the time comes they will be considered as very good vehicles for the implementation of the programme.

Mr Mark Durkan: In the development of these programmes we want to apply positive lessons from other EU programmes such as Peace I. In response to a similar question from Éamonn ONeill a couple of weeks ago, I made it clear that in INTERREG III we would be looking at how local delivery mechanisms, particularly through representative partnership networks, could be used as a means of making sure that we had the best impact as far as that programme was concerned.
The three cross-border networks represent 18 councils along the entire border corridor with some 100 elected representatives serving on the various cross-border networks. Obviously there is significant political support in the border regions, both North and South. I am aware that there is widespread support for their integrated area plans, and for the combined border corridor strategy, which consultants have been drafting on their behalf. We want to make sure that those networks can have as full an input as possible to the developing work on INTERREG III and, indeed, on some of the wider cross-border issues. As Mr Hussey rightly identified, there is a common chapter under the community support framework that will underline the importance of optimising the rate and nature of cross-border co-operation across the full range of social, economic and environmental programmes. Any contribution that representative networks, such as the three cross-border ones, can make would be very welcome.
We will fully respect, and ask for, that input. That of itself cannot constitute a promise that what the networks bid for themselves, as to what they would directly administer, will automatically be granted. The Member will be aware that we have to proceed on an open basis, and I am sure that the three networks will be satisfied with the quality of that openness.

Ms Jane Morrice: I have three questions for the Minister of Finance and Personnel. First, I was asked this morning about intermediary funding bodies. Will the Minister clarify what use will be made of the intermediary funding bodies in the new round of Peace II? Secondly, can he give a commitment that non-Government parties will be included in the monitoring process? Finally, what specific budget has he made available in Peace II for victims?

Mr Mark Durkan: First, intermediary funding bodies are clearly going to be involved in the delivery of Peace II. However, I cannot speculate about, or anticipate, the precise bodies and areas of involvement. Those matters will be decided in conjunction with the Peace II monitoring committee. I appreciate that there has been concern in some quarters that local delivery mechanisms and partnership boards may somehow be relegated in relation to Peace II. That is not the case.
I understand that people were also concerned that intermediary funding bodies were going to be squeezed; that is not the case either. We are trying to learn and apply all the positive lessons of Peace II and develop them in ways that will be effective, so as to sustain these measures, not just for the life of the Peace II programme, but beyond that.
We want these benefits to continue into the future. Our European Colleagues, who gave this money, do not just want to see us spend it over a five year period — they want us to invest it and secure returns on it in positive peace-building terms, involving regeneration and reconciliation over a longer period.
I indicated that decisions about the precise bodies that would be used, and the areas of their responsibility, would be something that would be developed and worked on with the monitoring committee. Currently the Interim community support framework monitoring committee has places for all parties in the Assembly. Unfortunately, it is a pretty unwieldy body, and I am not sure that the added presence of the various political parties, and the rotating attendance that that tends to give rise to, necessarily helps the focus of the Committee as far as some of its other members are concerned.
I refer the Member to the point that ÉamonnONeill made when earlier he suggested that the Assembly should have a separate monitoring committee of its own, particularly in relation to Peace II. That would be one of the ways in which the Assembly could underline the importance and distinctiveness of the additionality principle, and it is certainly something that I would not be averse to. If it happened, it might ease the overcrowding problem that can occur on the wider interim monitoring committee.

Industrial Development Board: Report of House of Commons Public Accounts Committee

Debate resumed on motion:
That this Assembly welcomes the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee report on the Industrial Development Board (HC 66) and directs that the Northern Ireland Assembly Public Accounts Committee give continuing attention to the issues raised in the report. — [Dr O’Hagan]

Rev William McCrea: I must confess that the brass neck of those who have instigated today’s debate, in reference to the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee Report on the Industrial Development Board, never ceases to amaze me.
Like many others, I have expressed concern over the years at the lack of real long-term employment brought into Northern Ireland by all the job creation agencies, the chief one of course being the Industrial Development Board (IDB). However, I also understand the difficulties that the IDB and other agencies have had over the years in attempting to increase employment and remove the scourge of unemployment, especially in areas west of the Bann. Those difficulties were made worse by 30years of terrorism when IRA/Sinn Féin carried out a bloody campaign of terror against workers, against industrialists and against places of employment.
Many of our towns and villages have been blown apart. Tens of millions of pounds were wasted, and thousands of jobs were lost from the Northern Ireland economy. Magherafelt town centre, for example, was blown asunder; the banks were destroyed; shops were destroyed; the blood of an innocent bystander, MrJohnston, flowed along the street — shed by the sectarian thugs of the IRA. There was also a young man in that town — a street cleaner — who was seen as a great threat to the community. He was blown up as he sought to do his work in our local town and community. He is still alive, but his legs were completely blown off. He has been left to wheel himself around in a wheelchair for the rest of his days, when he wanted nothing more than to be employed and to work to provide for the needs of his wife and children.
Who will forget the vanload of workmen coming down the Omagh/Cookstown road — men returning from a hard day’s work, doing an honest day’s work for a simple pay! Yet they were also thought to be a great danger to society because they happened to work in a security base — builders, bricklayers and the likes — returning from work one evening, coming to a place called Teebane. There is a memorial to those men along the side of the road and attempts have been made to disfigure that — the Provos even think the memorial to be obscene, just as they saw the workmen as obscene. They saw them as a threat because, unlike the Provos, they did not lie about all day and then go and blow the place to smithereens at night. They simply worked all day and rested at night before they went to do another hard day’s work.
It is rather obnoxious to find that party trying to use us to sanitise them — house-train, I think is the phrase — and make them look democratic. Somehow the party thinks that we are going to overlook the atrocities and vote in support of a hypocritical motion which would sicken any true democrat. I think of many of those people because many of them were my constituents.
Millions of pounds have been wasted west of the Bann, and thousands of jobs have been blown to smithereens, and now we hear pious platitudes and appeals for jobs from Members for the west of the Bann. Those are empty words, and I suggest that it will do no credit to the House to give any credibility to those who have no credit, decency, integrity or sense of democracy whatsoever.
It is against that backcloth of sickening, dastardly, atrocious and sectarian murders and bombings that the IDB has had to go across the world and proclaim the message of job creation in NorthernIreland. Its task was made a very difficult one because of those years of murder and mayhem.
It is true that the report of the Public Accounts Committee at Westminster highlights matters that have caused me concern for quite some time. The people of the Magherafelt and Cookstown areas have felt that the number of projects and real substantive jobs that they enjoyed was inadequate in comparison with the number that went to other areas. I know that many highlight the differences between east and west and that many say that that ought to be investigated. But I am not talking about that. I am speaking about the differences between jobs that are all west of the Bann. When I think of the jobs that are created west of the Bann and of the finance that is directed there, I cannot help but wonder at the massive difference in the amounts of money spent in one part of west of the Bann to the detriment of the rest of west of the Bann.
It amazes me that every time people talk about west of the Bann, they seem really only to be talking about a particular part of the city of Londonderry, and that is where all the money seems to be going. The Waterside area of that city and, of course, the rest of the west of the Province seem to be left out of any capital expenditure. Very few have been given the initiatives and the number of jobs that have gone into a particular part of the city of Londonderry, and that is wrong. When we talk about west of the Bann we are talking about more than the Bogside — other people happen to exist as well.
There ought to be an investigation into why millions have gone into this one part. Why has so little gone into the remainder by comparison, especially when one realises the difference in the numbers of persons and the large geographical area in question. That is why many people in the Cookstown and Magherafelt areas feel deeply disgruntled and frustrated. It seems that this money, when it goes west of the Bann, goes in one direction. It is trundling over the Glenshane Pass and is not stopping in the areas about which I have spoken. It is heading straight to one particular area. In spite of all the money being pumped in to that area we are being told it has not affected the unemployment levels. Where is the money going?
There is an interesting fact in this report:
"It is clear that a substantial proportion of jobs promised were not in fact created and that a significant percentage of created jobs were of limited duration."
It seems to me that a large amount of money has been trundled into one area, and after the money has been received and the initial period is over, and they do not have to pay it back, that it is a case of ‘Goodnight Irene’. They are ready for the next amount of money — but the jobs do not stay. There ought to be an investigation, and I would like to see the relevant Committee looking in detail at exactly how many of these companies have stayed.
Another investigation ought to be carried out. I remember the time when the Belfast Agreement was being sold. At that time I found getting to Belfast more difficult than ever before. I will tell you why. We never knew what road we would have to divert to, as there were so many lorries of money coming in through the airports and seaports. Announcements of these moneys and initiatives were made in order to buy off the people with the golden cord of the Belfast Agreement. It was the usual bluff and guff we have heard from the British Government since the process began. It is the re-circulation of the same money, but it rarely gets here. They re-circulate it by making an announcement that the money is coming in. However, they announce it again in a month’s time, and then again in another month’s time. I hope that some day the money will actually come.
It is sickening, because the people of Northern Ireland were sold a false story in the Belfast Agreement that if the people would buy into the system we would suddenly come into the Garden of Eden or the land of Canaan flowing with milk and honey.
According to the report it is clear that a substantial number of jobs promised were not in fact created. Therefore, I believe that we ought to see a more in-depth study of what has gone on in industrial development. I applaud the IDB for their successes — and make no mistake they have had successes under difficult circumstances — and I rejoice with those who have gained. Why should I not do so? They have been successful. However, I also believe that there needs to be a spreading of the cake throughout the area west of the Bann, as well as considering the east and west differential.
I trust that, after the debate has died down, in-depth studies will examine the channelling of finances in this Province because I believe that there are corrupt practices going on. Many people who funnel the money do not produce the goods. That does no good to those genuine business people who come in and provide excellent employment for the good people of Ulster.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. We do not need lectures here about violence or murder from the likes of McCrea. This is the man who stood with his arm around the late BillyWright, whose stock-in-trade was murdering Catholics. We do not need him to lecture us about murder, he would know all about it.

Sir John Gorman: Order. We will get absolutely nowhere if we are going to have this debate degenerate into calling each other murderers. Please let us make a vow not to go down this route at all. I call on MrsNelis to observe that.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The report clearly —

Mr Maurice Morrow: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Member to point and address a Member by his surname? This is the first time it has happened, and you would need to make a ruling on this particular matter now.

Sir John Gorman: I make that ruling. I made it, as you will recall, in another place, and that was observed. I call on Members, and Mrs Nelis in particular, to desist.

Rev William McCrea: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it not a fact that the old saying is that if you throw a stone in amongst a bundle of dogs, those that yelp the loudest have been hit?

Sir John Gorman: That is the kind of language that I have said must not be used in this Chamber, and I call on the Member to desist.

Mr Alex Maskey: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I actually refrained from complaining to you on a point of order at the manner in which MrMcCrea, the former MP for mid-Ulster, lambasted my party colleagues because they did not want to engage in any kind of fractious or silly debate. I am just making that point. With all due respect, I think that you gave him too much licence in his earlier contribution.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The report contained a very pertinent question, a LeasCheann Comhairle, and I think MrGardiner asked it. He asked what exactly a job promoted looked like? He asked the IDB that question, and we might ask the same question because we see so few of these promoted jobs.
This House cannot seriously try to defend the IDB’s record on foot of this report by referring to a conflict of the past 30years. Even if some did try, perhaps we should remind them that ceasefires have been in place for the past fiveyears and that the IDB must surely go into the record books for its efforts during those past fiveyears. In north and west Belfast they created two jobs in that space of time — two jobs in that unemployment black spot.
Despite reports from various economic forums, and using the various indices, the area I have mentioned remains one of the most impoverished areas in Europe. The IDB failed miserably in its responsibility to address that situation, and it should hang its head in shame over the announcement that it could create only two jobs. We are debating this motion because the Public Accounts Committee was very aware of the failures of the IDB to discharge its responsibilities.
In the Foyle constituency, for example, the IDB has reduced its support to client businesses by 14% in the past year. This comes at a time when Derry City Council clearly indicated in its economic strategy report that the constituency needs to create 12,000 jobs simply to bring it up to the Six County average. The Public Accounts Committee — and I assert this here today — is doing what it is appointed to do, namely make public bodies like the IDB accountable for their use of public money. The IDB has never truly been held to account for its stewardship of job promotion. The closure of its offices in Derry, the selling of its land bank and its fatalistic attitude towards the near extinction of the textile and other traditional industries, with some exceptions of course, were not matters that we, the elected representatives, were informed of or consulted about. Nor did these decisions, fundamental to job promotion west of the Bann, merit an explanation. I should indeed like to be able to say the IDB did a fine job, but I cannot see the evidence.
This morning I heard a Member use the words "creative accountancy" to describe a combination of efficiency and class distinction. We could be charitable and say that the IDB perhaps mismanaged its brief. I should be more inclined to say that its brief was much influenced by its total lack of interest in explaining why it wasted public money on firms and companies which, to put it mildly, ripped us all off. They certainly ripped the IDB off.
I wish to draw Members’ attention to the fact that we may be about to be ripped off again since, as some Members mentioned this morning, some of these jobs promised by the IDB’s call-centre clients are now being moved to England before they have even been established. Two hundred and fifty jobs will be lost, though we in the Foyle constituency were promised 650call-centre jobs last year. We are told that they are in the pipeline, that there are some difficulties, but we have not seen them yet.
I wish to support this motion. I hope that people read the Public Accounts Committee’s report. It is valuable teaching for us all, and I hope that the transparency and accountability it advocates will become the hallmarks of Members of this Assembly. Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

Mr Roy Beggs: I am an Assembly Member for East Antrim, a constituency that takes in the borough of Carrickfergus, which has the fifth-highest unemployment rate of any council district in Northern Ireland, something which many people from the west of the Province appear to forget. As a matter of interest, it is also at present excluded from much of the IDB’s financial support.
I am also a member of the Northern Ireland Public Accounts Committee, so to a certain extent I have an interest both in that side of things and in the wise investment of IDB funds in Northern Ireland. I welcome the monitoring of the IDB by the Northern Ireland Audit Office, which, for everyone’s information, actually took place in October 1998. Its initial report has been picked up by the Public Accounts Committee and highlighted at Westminster.
I too support much of the report’s valid criticism of the IDB, in particular that which relates to the lack of value for money as a result of many of its decisions. However, I have several concerns about the motion before us today. As some Members have already said, there is an issue of protocol, since the matter has been investigated by the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons, whose procedures are currently ongoing. The Department has yet to make a response.
Secondly, we must take note of the fact that the report is only five-weeks old. What would be the point in the Northern Ireland Public Accounts Committee’s producing a subsequent report on the issue? In my opinion, we must await a response from the Department. Thereafter, time will be required to establish whether the recommendations will be implemented. It is pointless for the Northern Ireland Public Accounts Committee to have an immediate investigation.
The function of the Northern Ireland Public Accounts Committee is to examine areas of concern and to bring accounting officers and other civil servants to account before the Committee and the Northern Ireland public. Its duty is also to highlight issues of impropriety and thus bring improvements to the spending of public money. The House of Commons Public Accounts Committee is in the process of doing this, and the Northern Ireland Audit Office will automatically follow up many of the recommendations in the original report as a matter of course.
There are several existing means by which the Assembly can continue to take an interest. Individual Members can put down questions for written or oral answer. The Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, to which the IDB is accountable, can deal with the issues in detail. If that fails, and the Northern Ireland Audit Office advises us that improvements have not been made, it can be brought before the Northern Ireland Public Accounts Committee. It would be inappropriate, to assume now that that is what will happen.
I am concerned at the directive element in the motion. I ask Members to note that of the 18 reports that the House of Commons PAC has published this year, this is the first which applies specifically to Northern Ireland. What about 17 reports, published by the Northern Ireland Audit Office, which require investigation by the Northern Ireland PAC? We have a responsibility to investigate those reports in detail, and to bring the accounting officers responsible to account. Road safety, suspected fraud in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and river pollution are issues, which have not been addressed in the past. It is improper at this time to give a directive on one particular issue. Time is required to see whether the advice will be taken and if there is any need for a subsequent report. It would not be putting the NorthernIreland PAC to best use by having it reinvestigate these issues now.
It is a surprise to see this motion coming from SinnFéin. As other Assembly Members have said, the fact that terrorism has been going on in NorthernIreland makes this motion’s coming from it hypocritical. I would appreciate the same amount of pressure and the same directive style coming from SinnFéin/IRA to ensure that the so-called punishment attacks, mutilations and recent terrorist actions — the bomb in Ballymurphy, for instance — become things of the past. Whether Sinn Féin Members like it or not, such terrorist action make investment in West Belfast more difficult for the IDB to secure, and this is an important matter they should address in their constituencies.
I have sympathy with much of the content of the report. However, because I consider it inappropriate to investigate the issue again and to give a directive at this time, I will not be supporting the motion.

Sir John Gorman: We have three more members to speak before the winding-up speeches by the Minister and DrO’Hagan. I ask the three Members to limit themselves to seven minutes each.

Mr Alex Maskey: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I want to make a couple of points, but I will be quite brief. I am not sponsoring this motion and I presume that the sponsor will deal with some of the questions raised. I am just curious. Does Mr Beggs, for example, accept that the lack of success that the IDB has apparently had in Carrickfergus, according to his statistics, is due to the endemic, systematic sectarian harassment of Catholics in that community? Or, is it a reflection of the lack of ability or success of the IDB? I am not sure. It is a question that he needs to answer since he asked one of a similar kind about my area. I am putting it in Mr Beggs’s context.

Mr Roy Beggs: Will the Member give way?

Sir John Gorman: It appears that the Member is not giving way.

Mr Alex Maskey: I have no problem about giving way to him at all.

Mr Roy Beggs: One of the reasons for the lack of investment by IDB in my area is the inappropriateness of its criteria for deciding where investment should be directed. Even though Carrickfergus has the fifth highest level of unemployment, it has been excluded from those criteria.

Mr Alex Maskey: Mr Beggs was justifying the IDB’s lack of success in my constituency for the reasons that he gave. I am merely drawing his attention to difficulties in his constituency, which have or should have affected job creation and other developments there. It is futile to be throwing these kinds of allegations about. There are difficulties in his constituency, which he appears not to be able to address. Anyway that is another discussion.
I do accept that IDB has faced difficulties over a long number of years. I am certainly not here today to put a lot of those difficulties at the door of the Minister, Reg Empey, because he is only recently in post.
I welcome the motion. I do not accept, or even understand, the arguments that people are putting forward that because the Public Accounts Committee in the British Parliament is dealing with this we should not. If that is the case, we will not be dealing with a lot of issues here. Just because they have already been dealt with in London or are in the process of being dealt with there, should we pack up and go home? The motion is self-explanatory. It merely says that there is an issue which has been aired in the Public Accounts Committee’s report, and Dr O’Hagan is asking the Assembly to continue taking an active interest in it.
I want to speak essentially for my constituency. The figures in the report show that in West Belfast there has been a net reduction in jobs in spite of all the money that has been spent by agencies, including the IDB. To try to evaluate this in the longer term, would it not be better if the IDB were to identify a budget for the various constituencies, building into that an identifiable element of targeting social need, which nobody ever seems to be able to quantify? I would like to see a budget which is identified, which is TSN proofed, which is related to the various industries and to deprivation, need and lack of employment opportunities, constituency by constituency. If possible, I would further like that money to be used by the IDB to work with local communities, district councils and local partnerships, et cetera, to try to develop and marry the various strategies to ensure that at least a portion of the IDB budget which has been allocated for constituencies is ring-fenced. A strategy should be developed in conjunction with the local communities, the success of which can eventually be evaluated. If people know the budget that is available to them, and are realistic with that budget, local strategies, working with the IDB and other Government Departments can give us a way forward.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)

Mr Maurice Morrow: I will not be supporting this motion because there is a degree of mischievousness in it. If there is a perception abroad, which there is, that we cannot treat anything seriously that comes from the Sinn Féin/IRA Benches, it knows why that is the case.
I am not a great fan of the IDB and never have been. Indeed, the criticisms contained in the report are well-founded and need to be tackled and dealt with. Despite our best efforts, we were not able to move an amendment to this motion, but that is a matter for another place. I want to state quite categorically that — [Interruption]

Mr Alex Maskey: Will the Member give way?

Mr Donovan McClelland: It is obvious that the Member is not giving way.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I will not be supporting the motion, and I am not giving way to Mr Maskey — [Interruption]
In relation to the jibe, I did not support it. I do not support anything that comes from Sinn Féin/IRA. It is not up to me to decide what is kept off the Order Paper as far as the business of this Assembly is concerned. The Member knows that very well; he was there when the whole matter was discussed. If he wants to make a few silly, stupid jibes, that is a matter entirely for him.
For 30years NorthernIreland has been subjected to a vicious and ruthless terror campaign, much of which has been waged against economic targets. While I feel that the IDB should be subjected to a root-and-branch overhaul, I would be foolhardy and irresponsible not to acknowledge that their task was made more difficult by groups like Sinn Féin/IRA and other terrorist organisations.
On reading the report it is clear that many of the jobs promised were never created and, indeed, that a large percentage of those that were created lasted only for a very short time. It is also alarming to note that not all the costs were incorporated into the cost-per-job calculation.
In addition, it is surprising, to say the least, that the IDB does not use the Internet to market Northern Ireland. MrSammyWilson made reference to this earlier, and I find it incredible that in this day and age the IDB has not been told that the Internet exists. However, I am sure that when they read this report, they too will discover that there are other ways of marketing NorthernIreland which they have not pursued to date.
I certainly agree with my Colleague, IanPaisley, when he cited the IRA; his criticism of Sinn Féin is well placed. I am not a fan of the IDB, and, having read the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee report, I have to say that my feelings have not changed.
The IDB undoubtedly has an extremely difficult task in job creation and no one — and I include myself here — should underestimate that, but the litany of concerns expressed throughout the report cannot be ignored. The Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, Sir RegEmpey, will, no doubt, have given this report his careful consideration. Can this Assembly look forward to his considered response detailing what action he will be taking to ensure that such a report will not be necessary in the future? I hope that the Minister will take particular interest in the cost per job, which, though planned to be £37,900, was, in fact, £56,200. That is 50% more than the figure first suggested. I accept, of course, that the IDB is at the cutting edge of risk taking and is always going to be vulnerable to criticism, but I think it has to learn, if it has not done so already, that it is very easy to cut whangs off another man’s leather, but while they are custodians of public funds, they should keep that very much to the fore.
BillyHutchinson made an excellent point regarding job announcements. We often hear announcements about thousands of jobs, but do we ever see thousands of jobs being created? When you look at the fine print you discover that thousands dwindle to hundreds or, indeed, to around 50. We need jobs that support the job creation schemes, targeting real areas of social need. Rural constituencies, like mine, that have very high unemployment figures must be looked at more carefully in the future. Let us see a fairer distribution of job creation. I believe, like MrMcCrea, that Londonderry has had more than its fair share. Other areas of NorthernIreland must also get their fair share of job creation and have money spent on them.

Mr Jim Shannon: I am also unable to support the motion for one simple reason, and that is that the organisation proposing it is the same one that for 30years, has subjected this country to all sorts of bombing, and as a result, our economy has been badly affected. That having been said, the IDB has not endeared itself to the people of the Province, and certainly not to the people of Strangford especially. The people of Northern Ireland have had to sit back and watch as the IDB has failed majestically to justify the amount of taxpayer money which was being spent on job creation to comparatively little effect.
Events on the ground have had a major economic impact on areas of Northern Ireland during 30years of a terrorism and bombing campaign. In Newtownards we had a bomb a few years ago that caused £5million worth of damage. Where could we have invested £5million in Newtownards? We could have opened further food-processing units to create employment; we could have used it to help the farming industry; we could have used it for the fishing industry; or we could have used it for the textile industry- all those industries that needed help. But, instead of being able to help them, the Government had to pay out £5million plus to the people who had suffered as a result of the bomb; a bomb planted by the IRA; a bomb planted to destroy the economic life of the centre of Newtownards.
At the same time, over the last few years, the people of Strangford have had other large economic blackspots to contend with. The backbone of our rural economy is farming. It contributes a lot to the life of our constituency in both rural and urban areas. It has been devastated in recent years while a substantial part of the urban industry has been in textiles. Both industries, agriculture and textiles, are now under enormous pressure. The situation appears to be spiralling out of control, and we are now in the midst of a crisis, which will not only affect the individuals who have been told that they are to become redundant but will have an immensely negative impact upon the whole local economy.
Losses from the Bairdwear, Hawkes Bay and Lamont Holdings, (a Regency Spinners Group) have had a huge impact on the local economy. We have witnessed the loss of over 600 jobs within the clothing industry in the space of just a few months. From being a solid base for the industry, the Ards area now finds itself struggling to maintain any presence whatsoever.
What about the land that has been set aside by the IDB for development in Newtownards and Strangford? Firstly, not enough land has been set aside for development. Secondly, the land that is set aside is owned by the IDB and some of it is on a hill. It is going to be very difficult to build a factory on a hill. It is going to be almost impossible to prepare that site, and what is the IDB doing today? It should be preparing the ground so that if any factories do want to come in, we will be in a position to react. The conduct of the IDB at best has been unprofessional and at worst downright discriminating.
Financially, the loss of 600 jobs can only have a devastating effect upon the local economy and, as a result, it is estimated that £6·5million will be lost. The picture is the same right across Northern Ireland. From an internal point of view, part of the problem lies with the Robson index. There needs to be an urgent review of targeting social need as results do not appear to produce an accurate indication of social deprivation within any given area. There must be parity of social recognition between a disadvantaged person living in an area that is perceived to be affluent and a disadvantaged person in an area which is perceived to be disadvantaged.
Areas such as Ards and Strangford are perceived to be affluent, but one just has to look at the local housing estates to read a different story. The new system should be more effective at locating areas of social deprivation, but because this system will continue to work alongside local government and ward boundaries, a large number of areas in our constituency will continue to be ignored, being part of a ward which is perceived to be affluent when the reality is that a large proportion of that ward is anything but.
With the crisis in agriculture and the disintegration of the textile industry, unemployment figures for the borough are higher than the Northern Ireland average. I have heard some Members talking about unemployment today. Unemployment in our area is rising dramatically. Where the proportion of people claiming benefit is 5·7% in Northern Ireland as a whole, and 5·2% in the Belfast travel-to-work area, the figure for the Ards borough is 6·7%, a figure that does not even take into account the most recent redundancies within textiles. The final figure is believed to be around a staggering 9·6%.- almost 10% in the Ards borough perceived to be an affluent area, but is anything but. There must be flexibility in Government policy or this system of TSN will continue to punish the people of Ards. These figures hardly show that the Ards borough or Strangford is an affluent area, a place where job opportunities are available, where everything is going well.
Even though the IDB played an important role in securing the future of Northern Ireland Spinners Ltd in Killinchy, it is clear that they have not delivered on their obligations to the people and the economy of Northern Ireland. They have done people in Strangford and across this Province a great disservice. Great swaths of jobs have gone, with few subsequent options or opportunities being made available to those laid off. This dreadfully unsatisfactory situation cannot be allowed to continue. Change is urgently required. Resolute and necessary action must be taken in order to enhance and rebuild the economy of Northern Ireland.

Sir Reg Empey: It has already been acknowledged that I find myself in something of a dilemma this afternoon. On one hand, I welcome the interest of the Public Accounts Committees of the House of Commons and of the Assembly in the work of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in pursuit of better public services. On the other hand, with a memorandum of response to the Public Accounts Committee report not yet compiled, let alone agreed with the Department of Finance and Personnel and returned to the Committee, I am unable to enter fully into the debate or to inform Members as I would wish. I deeply regret this, because so many points have been made, and the debate has been of such a nature, that detailed answers are required.
It is not my intention to be discourteous to the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons, which has made it clear that there is a procedure laid down for such responses. They are to be made within eight weeks. At this stage, IDB and the Department of Finance and Personnel have not yet completed the compilation of a response, and I cannot anticipate that response. I certainly cannot give detailed answers until that response has been handed to the Public Accounts Committee. I hope hon Members do not expect me to put the House in that difficult position.
However, in the light of what has been said today, and without wishing to prejudice in any way the memorandum of response or to seem disrespectful to the Committee, I feel I must say something in general terms, if only to retain a sense of perspective.
The Public Accounts Committee report covers the period April 1988 to March 1997. As will be seen in due course when the IDB makes its response, much progress has been made since then. Secondly, the difficult political and economic climate in which the IDB operated throughout most of this period is a factor that has been acknowledged by the Committee. The IDB’s approach to measuring the economic efficiency of new inward investment cases now mirrors that undertaken elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
The issue of jobs promoted was referred to on a number of occasions. It is a common means of measuring the performance of industrial development agencies throughout the United Kingdom. The actual rate of conversion to jobs created by IDB inward investments is 76%, which compares very favourably with Scotland and Wales. If Members refer to the report, they will see that this point is acknowledged.
Pay-outs on letters of offer are triggered by each company’s performance in delivering agreed targets. There seems to be a perception that, just because a deal is struck on a certain number of jobs that are to be created, the money agreed is automatically paid over. That is not the case. The money is only paid over when certain targets are actually met. If they are not met, funds are not paid to the companies concerned.
Finally, the IDB has worked very hard to maximise job creation in TSN areas. Again, this has been acknowledged. I agree with Members who said that this in itself is a subject for debate. I hope shortly to come to comments made by individual Members, including Mr Shannon.
The PAC report on inward investment raises important issues and will receive my full attention. Where there is room for improvement, I will ensure that progress is made. The IDB has an important role to play in helping to build the local economy, and I look forward to working with the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee and the Public Accounts Committee to maximise its effectiveness. I do not wish to get into a blow by blow account of every point in the report. A number of comments were made throughout the debate and I would like to refer now to some of those.
I begin by referring to the comments by the hon Member for North Antrim, IanPaisleyJnr, when he specifically referred to the Moyle area of his constituency and what he considered to be an inadequate response by the IDB to the difficulties there. I am very much aware that Moyle has taken over from Strabane as the highest unemployment local council area in the Province. That is something I deeply regret. The honMember for North Antrim will be aware that, in the short period since devolution has been restored, I have visited Moyle because of an unfortunate incident at the Giant’s Causeway visitor centre. I believe there is considerable potential for employment, especially out of that tragedy, which has the potential for a significant investment.
The Member for East Antrim, MrNeeson, made some remarks about ‘Strategy 2010’ and tax-raising and tax-varying powers. I know that he and his party have been advocates of this policy for a long time. While it is something that we will have to come to on another day, my concern is that tax-varying powers would equate to tax-raising powers, because the temptation to increase taxes for public expenditure would be inevitable. One needs to be very careful not to create a disincentive to investment, because the stresses and strains between demands for public expenditure and competitive rates will be very strong. As Members know, the Republic has attracted companies on the basis of a lower rate through its corporation tax. My concern would be that if we had tax-varying powers that were not corporation tax-varying powers, these would become tax increases and therefore a disincentive, doing the very opposite of what the Republic has been successful in doing by using its corporation tax variants.
A number of Members have referred to the circumstances that the IDB and, indeed, LEDU find themselves in with regard to the issues surrounding violence and disorder. Though he is not in the Chamber, the honMember for North Belfast, MrHutchinson, seemed to make light of this, that it did not matter so much what the IRA or the Loyalists did. You cannot ignore these things. When I was LordMayor of Belfast I had visitors and potential investors in the parlour when the windows rattled, and I had to try to explain that to them. Nobody in their right mind could imagine that a terrorist war, which has waged for three decades, would not have any impact whatsoever on inward investment. It is absolute nonsense to suggest it. Most of today’s investment is mobile and it can go anywhere. Nobody is going to be content to invest in an area which is patrolled by armoured cars, where buildings are surrounded by cages, and where people are constantly sweeping up the rubble and the glass and having to spend hours upon hours of management time on claims and trying to rebuild their businesses. So to say that this is of no account is patent nonsense. That would be obvious to anybody. A number of Members have made that point. I do not propose to refer to each one of them individually, but it is important that we understand that that has been a consistent factor.
The other issue that must be understood is that the morale of the people who are going out to market and sell Northern Ireland, whether as a tourist or industrial destination, has to be taken into consideration. Whether we like it or not, the pattern in North America and other markets for years has been that whenever you say you are from Northern Ireland the people look at you and start to talk. What do they talk about? They do not start by talking about the Giant’s Causeway or the great weather — they ask "Is the war on?" and enquire about people’s safety. There are questions like that before one even gets to discuss the investments.
Thank God, I believe that that is changing. However, this report covers the period from 1988 onwards, and therefore covers some of the worst periods of the troubles. To imagine that this could have taken place without any reference to difficulties is clearly wrong. The hon Member for East Belfast, MrSammy Wilson, referred to the Internet. It may well be that that hon Member chooses to spend his time on the Internet on other matters, but I can assure him that the IDB is very much on the Internet. If I could tear him away from some of the other sites he might be visiting, I suggest that he visit the site because in January this year I launched an upgraded site for the IDB. It is a very good site, and I would commend it to Members. The hon Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone also referred to it, and, if he chooses to look it up, he will find a very positive site there presenting a very positive image of Northern Ireland. Indeed, our Internet marketing is moving forward very strongly. There is a team in IDB House that takes this matter very seriously, and I believe that when the Member looks up the site he will be impressed by what he sees.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I thank the Minister for giving way. We are simply quoting what is in the report. Is he telling us that the report is wrong? The report’s authors say that they would like to introduce the IDB to the Internet. If the Minister is saying that that part is wrong, then we accept that. However, he would need to clarify that and correct the report if that is the case. Thank you.

Sir Reg Empey: I do not want to get into a blow-by-blow account on the actual report, but I can assure the hon Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone that there is an IDB Internet site. I have given him its address, and I suggest that he take up my suggestion to have look at it.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I am happy to do that.

Sir Reg Empey: I appreciate that, and we will come back to it on another occasion. The hon Member for South Belfast, Dr McDonnell, talked about more risk taking, refocusing, and a more comprehensive debate. One of the criticisms I have of the motion is its timing, because we are in a position where, for parliamentary protocol reasons, I am replying in this debate with both hands tied behind my back; I regret that. The other matter is that the IDB and the Department of Finance and Personnel do not yet have their major piece of input in front of this Assembly. I know that Committees will want to engage in that, and that Members will want to have a full, free and open debate. I repeat that I do not intend to insult Members of Parliament and the Committee structure at Westminster, because I believe it would be a very short-term gain to do so.
Some people have perhaps misunderstood what has been happening, even in their own areas. Although this report is specifically about the IDB’s performance, Members must remember that the largest performance and most significant number of jobs created are by the private sector and the public sector, in the natural course of events and under their own steam. IDB client companies and LEDU client companies only represent part of the economy. Not every company receives money and not every company asks for money. Indeed, the majority of companies do not do so. That, of course, is where most jobs are actually created.

Sir Reg Empey: I want to refer to a number of points that were made by the hon Member for Mid Ulster, MrMcCrea, who, unfortunately, is not with us at the moment. He was very concerned that west of the Bann got a particularly raw deal and he claimed that a large part of the money was going into a particular part of one constituency. Indeed, listening to the complaints of the hon Member for Foyle, Mrs Nelis, you would think she did not get daylight up there. She should have known better because I sent her a reply to a written question recently. I have been looking at the Foyle constituency’s slice of the cake in the five years from 1995/1996 onwards.
In 1995-96 the Foyle constituency’s selective financial assistance from the Industrial Development Board (IDB) totalled almost £21 million, and that left Foyle in number two position in Northern Ireland. In 1996-97 it received £8·1 million, leaving it in eighth position. In 1997-98 it received £51·6 million, leaving it in first position. In 1998-99 it received £3·9million, leaving it in eighth position. Last year it received £5·6 million, leaving it in fifth position. On average that puts it in the top quartile in every one of the last five years, and I do not consider that as paying scant regard to the area. In terms of Local Enterprise Development Unit (LEDU) performance, it is averaging 7% over the last six years as well. In other words, it is very much on a par there as well.
In relation to what Mr McCrea was saying about his constituency, sadly, it did not receive any selective financial assistance from the IDB last year. But in 1995-96 it was in third position with £15 million; that dropped to £2·3 million in 1996-97; £1·3 million in both 1997-98 and 1998-99, and nothing in the last financial year. Therefore, he probably has a point about more recent years. But take some other constituencies, Strangford, for example, which in 1995 received nothing, in 1996 received £1·5 million, in 1997 £1·4 million, in 1998 £0·16 million, and last year just under a million. There are many other constituencies in weaker positions. In terms of LEDU —

Mr John Tierney: The Minister must look at the unemployment figures as well. Taking those into account, the Foyle Constituency’s assistance level was one of the lowest.

Sir Reg Empey: The impression was given clearly in the debate that there is considerable grievance that the Foyle Constituency is doing very badly out of all of this. I am simply saying that the arithmetic in front of me does not sustain that. That is the reality. It is there in black and white. Of course you must relate things to unemployment, as you do to a range of other matters too. This is because deprivation can take a range of forms. The point I am making is that it is perfectly clear that both LEDU and IDB recognise the difficulties that constituency has.
What people must remember about all of this is that the demand for selective financial assistance comes from companies. Projects and expansions have to be there and coming forward. The IDB cannot unilaterally produce a result and cede money going to a particular Constituency. It has to come from demand from particular companies, and I believe there has been a significant response over recent years in that Constituency. It is in the reply, which is in the public domain.

Mr Derek Hussey: I am sure the Minister will agree that the MP and MEP there probably did a lot of the good work in attracting business. It is a pity that the same Member of Parliament, prior to reorganisation, forgot that Strabane was part of his constituency.

Sir Reg Empey: That is what you call an up-and-under. A former rugby commentator used to come out with that one. I take seriously the difficulties the hon Member has in his constituency, and he knows that I will see some of his Colleagues this week in regard to some of those matters. I visited the area when I was in this position the last time we had devolution, and I am conscious of the difficulties. Although this was an answer to a particular Member, it might be useful to have this set of statistics, broken down into district council areas, submitted and circulated to all Members. It would be a reference point, and it might be useful for Members to have a ready reckoner at their disposal so that they could refer to it and see how things are moving.
The Member for east Antrim, MrBeggs, referred to the difficulties in his area, and I direct my response to him and MrShannon, from Strangford. North Down, Ards and Carrick have some of the highest male unemployment rates in the Province. There is a hidden problem in areas in the Greater Belfast commuter belt; a two-speed constituency is developing. There are those who are indigenous to the constituency, who work and live in it, and there are those who reside in the constituency but do not work in it, and I have noticed this particularly in the Strangford area.
I visited Strangford as a result of the crisis in the textile industry to liase with the borough council over their difficulties in that regard, and it was obvious that many of the staple industries (agriculture, fishing and textiles) have been taking a hammering, but because there is a growing proportion of the population in those districts — and this applies equally in North Down — of those who reside in the constituency but do not live in it, that disguises the underlying difficulties in the economy in those two areas. A lot of that also applies to the constituency of East Antrim. When we look at the Robson index and the indices of deprivation, we see that this is one of the pockets of deprivation that are located in the middle of areas of apparent affluence.
When we come to deal with the new TSN issue these are matters we will have to address and be honest about. Instead of taking the global statistics, which can be misleading, we must remember that it does not matter where a person is, if that person is in a situation where he is being deprived and has no opportunities or skills, then we are tasked to do our best to provide him with opportunities. It does not matter whether he is in Upper Malone or in any other ward, everybody should have an equal opportunity to improve and get themselves out of a particular difficulty. That is not going to be done simply by using a blunt instrument such as some of the statistical methods that are currently at our disposal. But perhaps that is a debate for another day.
For reasons that I have made clear, I have not been able to be as responsive to the matters referred to during the debate in respect of the IDB’s performance, and I apologise for that. I hope we will return to this in the next session when we will have had the opportunity to go through the report with the clear advantage of a response from the IDB and DFP and with the knowledge of the considered position of the Public Accounts Committee in London. The reasons I have stipulated together with the matters referred to by the hon Member for Lagan Valley, MrBell, mean that I am therefore unable to support this motion.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. First, I would like to share the Minister’s hope that we will return to this debate during the next session. I would like to thank the people who contributed and who made serious and sensible contributions to the debate. There are a number of issues the first of which is the timing and tabling of the motion. I welcome the Speaker’s ruling that this was a competent motion, which we were perfectly entitled to debate in the Assembly.
The reason the motion was put down, as I said in my opening speech, was that the Assembly is going into recess and this is too important an issue to be left until September. As EsmondBirnie said, this debate can be used to flag up a number of issues regarding the IDB.
Turning to some of the comments made, I am disappointed that the Chairman of our Public Accounts Committee intends to wait for the procedure to go through Westminster. The wording of the motion was chosen carefully in the light of the recommendation from the Select Committee at Westminster to our Public Accounts Committee asking it to keep a watching brief on the matter. That recommendation still stands and is very pertinent.
Some good comments were made, and overall people showed serious concern about the performance and activities of the IDB. The concern is mainly about the figures for job creation and job promotion, the lack of accountability and the lack of response to Committees, such as that at Westminster, but it also centres around the lack of adherence to equality issues and TSN.
I was glad to hear John Dallat say that he is on the Auditor General’s committee. He said that the Auditor General is not only capable but willing to deal with this and other issues and that our Public Accounts Committee has a critical role to play.
Some very sensible comments were made, and I was glad to hear that contributors like Ian Paisley Jnr agreed that this was an indictment of the failure of the IDB and a catalogue of shame. Unfortunately, MrPaisley, along with other Members of his party, then reverted to type and came out with comments that were typical of the DUP — for his information I have read the report, and that is why the motion is worded as it is.
With regard to the other comments about my part in putting down the motion, I would remind some parties that they have sailed very close to the wind. I need only mention the DUP’s involvement with UlsterResistance and its support for the Orange Order and others in their attempts to bring this place to a standstill. Given that economic development was linked to political stability, it might be helpful if MrPaisley and MrWilson’s Colleagues took their seats in the Executive and projected a more positive image. The DUP’s response to the motion was interesting. It shows its difficulty in dealing with sensible and normal motions — the DUP always has to bring everything back to the confrontational politics with which it is most comfortable.
As time goes on, the stresses and strains in that party will increase as normal politics begin to bed down. By way of a reminder to that party, and to the other people who questioned our putting this motion down, my party and I are here because of an electoral mandate. We are entitled to be here, and we are entitled to bring forward and debate areas of concern, and that is something my Colleagues and I will continue to do.
In winding up, I thank the Minister for his reply. I am pleased that he said that he will be giving the Public Accounts Committee’s report his full attention. Perhaps he will reply by way of a written answer to my question.
We were talking about statistics and I think it is true that you can have "lies, damned lies and statistics". How much of the overall IDB budget is spent east of the Bann and how much is spent west of the Bann? I am glad that these issues were raised. They are very serious issues. The IDB has been in existence since 1982 and there has been little accountability and I think that it is important that the Assembly begins to take control of issues such as the IDB. I am glad that this motion was made and I urge people to support it. Go raibh maith agat.
Question put and negatived.
The sitting was suspended at 5.50 pm.